»•-* 


^ 


l(< 


O-i- 


"^ 


s^ 

^s 

,  «^ 

ns 

j 

15 

« 

J5 

^.^ 

Ic 

( 

— ^^ 

Hi 

Q- 

1 

^t^ 

*«r5 

1^ 

O 

*3 

5 

1 

fe 

(U 

; 

c^ 

c 

;          1 

'C^ 

o 

bfl 

r\ 

>s 

Eh 

<. 

^ 

l^ 

3 

sT 

Izi 

£ 

.«o 

<«> 

M 

(ij 

■!2 

jfi. 

rt 

CO 

■^ 

■^f* 
s*-* 

PM 

S 

Ol 

% 

-a 

^" 

c 

^ 

^ 

9f 

1 

v> 

qI 

& 
^ 

INF  AN  *f 


B     A     P     T     I     S     |»i 


FROM 


H    E    A    V    E    N!r 


TWO     DISCOURSES 


DSL  I VE  R  ED 


At  Haverhill  Weft-Parifh,  ^nVaSth,  lySf, 


r'W"^ 


The  Second  Edition. 


With  an  APPENDIX,  obviating  fome  Ob» 
jedtions  offered  againft  the  Truth  uflerted ;  and 
fome  other  Remarks  upon  the  late  remarkable 
Performance  of  Mn  Hezekiah  Smith. 


By  JONATHAN   PARSONS,   A.M. 

Minifter  of  the  Prefbyterian  Church  in  Ne'wbury-Port. 


BOSTON: 

Printed  by  W.  M^Alpinb  in  Marlborough-ftred") 


IVIL'CCJ.AVIJ.. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 

THE  Preface  to  the  firft  Edition,  and 
the  marginal  Notes  and  References 
to  fome  worthy  Authors,  (which  I  ac- 
knowledge were  helpful  to  me  in  the 
compoiition)  are  omitted  in  this  for  the 
fake  of  brevity. And  the  many  typo- 
graphical errors  in  it  are  now  correct- 
ed, fo  far,  that  I  hope,  if  any  ftill  re- 
main, they  will  not  hurt  the  attentive 
and  judicious  Reader. 

The  general  Defign,  and  the  evidence 
given  to  fupport  the  Truths  aflerted, 
appear  to  me  in  the  fame  light  that  they 
have  done  for  more  than  3  o  years  paft : 
But  upon  a  clofe  review  of  the  argu- 
ments I  am  more  confirmed,  and  am 
more  fenfible  of  the  great  importance 
of  the  Truths  defended. 


^)^,-■J^^^^^^>^^^^'^-v^^f73^•^T^•}?^^!,{^T^^T^r^^ 


D  I  S  C  O  U  R  S^^  t 


ACTS    XVI.    33. 

'^And  was  baptized ,  he^  and  all  his^  Jlraighti^ajj, 

^>:x^.::c>:::^  H  E  difFulivc  goodnefs  of  the  infi- 

Tx      nitely  glorious  God,    is  eminently 
^     difplayed,   in  giving  us  more  noble 
X  X      powers  and  faculties  than  the  beads 

^>-^->.^><^'^%  q£  ji^g  earth,  and  in  making  ns  ca- 
pable of  more  excellent  enjoyments  and  employ- 
ments, than  merely  fenfitive  creatures.  But,  when 
the  world  of  mankind  was  laid  under  a  deluge  of 
fin  and  death,  by  the  univerfal  corruption  of  hu- 
man nature,  and  there  was  none  to  help,  the 
goodnefs  of  God  was  more  eminently  difplayed 
in  the  wonderful  work  of  redemption  by  his  Son 
Jefus  Chrift,  who  was  the  gift  of  the  Father,  and 
made  his  foul  an  offering  for  iin,  that  he  might 
fee  his  feed,  and  the  pleafure  of  the  Lord  might 
profper  in  his  hands. 

And  as  God  was  pleafed  to  treat  with  innocent 
man  in  a  covenant-way,  a  covenant  of  works ;  fo 
he  has  been  pleafed  to  make  a  new  and  better  cove-, 
nant,  which  is  in  ail  things  well  ordered  and  lure» 
^nd  to  ifinglc  out  fpme  of  Adam's  ruined  race  and 
-  - .  hnnz 


t 


6  Infant  Eaptifm  vindicated, 

bring  them  into  the  bonds  of  it.  Thus  particu- 
larly^  he  dealt  with  Jbraham^  and  entailed  it  un- 
to his  feed  after  him,  for  an  evcrlafiing  covenant, 
which  gave  them  a  claim  to  many  great  and  peculiar 
privileges,  _  And  thcfe  privileges  the  lews  for  ma* 
iiy  ages  CQjoyed,  until,  by  their  unbelief,  they  ^ox-* 
itMtA  "  the  adoption,  and  thegiqry,  and  the  cove- 
*'  Dacts,  and  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  fer- 
**  vice  of  God,  and  the  promifeb."  But  what  qua- 
lifies the  divine  feveriry,  in  the  reiedion  of  the  Jews 
from  being  the  covenant-people  of  God,  upon  their 
reje<fling  J::fus  Chrift  as  the  true  Meffiah,  is,  that 
'^  through  their  fall  falvation  is  come  unto  the 
"  Gentiles  i"  and  fo  they  are  become  the  myftical 
body  of  Jefu&Chf  iHj  or  the  covenant-people  of  God, 

Unto  this  covenant  God  has  appointed  a  token, 
iigo  or  feal  of  indudion,  for  a  confirmation  of  the 
promifes  on  his  part,  and  an  obligation  to  that  duty 
which  is  ihcir  part  of  the  covenant.  Circumcifion 
was  the  feal  of  indudlion  unto  Ahraham  and  to  his 
feed  under  the  ancient  difpenfation  of  the  covenant  j 
butiince  the  blood  of  Jefus  Chrift  has  been  adual- 
}y  ihed  for  the  remillion  and  purgation  of  fin,  that 
bloody  ordinance  is  done  aWay,  and  baptifm  is,  by 
divine  appointment,  the  badge  of  all  the  difciplesof 
ChriO:,  and  the  introdudtion  in^othe  vifible  church. 
Therefore  all  thofe  that  receive  the  doflrinCj  and 
fubmittedtotheinftitutionof  John  Raptift,  he  bap- 
tized with  water,  as  the  manner  of  the  Jews  was  to 
admit  profelytes,  in  token  of  their  cleanfing  them- 
felves  by  repentance  and  reformation.  This  poitit-^ 
ed  io  the  baptifm  which  oar  Saviour  Jefus  Chrifl 
afterwards  ordained  to  be  the  feal  of  indudlion  ynto 
ihe  vifible  churchj  under  the  Chrifliaii  difpenfation, 

and 


Infant  Bapiifm  vindicated.  f 

ahd  was  the  dawn  of  the  gofpel-day.  And  hence 
Chrift  having  received  power  from  the  Father, 
gave  a  connniffion  to  his  apoftles,  and  to  all  his 
ordinary  minifter?,  to  admit  his  dilciples  into  the 
church  by  the  {acred  rite  of  baptiim  with  water, 
"  in  the  name  of  the  Faiherj  and  of  the  Son,  and 
**  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,"  as  the  fignal  of  dcdicatioa 
to  God,  to  be  hi?,  and  for  him,  forever.  There- 
fore, when  any  of  the  Gentiles  or  others  en:ibraced 
the  Chriflian  religion,  and  made  an  open  profeffion 
of  it,  they  were  admitted  into  the  communion  oi" 
the  Chriftian  church,  by  the  ordinance  of  water-* 
baptifm  ;  and  not  only  they,  but  all  theirs.  Thus 
in  particular  it  was,  with  regard  to  the  inflance  be- 
fore us :  no  fooner  did  the  jailor  fubmit  to  the  laws 
of  Chriftianity,  but  he  v^'as  admitted  to  its  privi- 
leges, being  baptized,  he  and  all  bis  ilraightway^ 

Having  introduced  my  text,  we  might  confider 
that  thofe,  who  are  converted  from  paganifm  or 
judaifm,  or  any  other  religion,  to  embrace  Chriilia-^ 
nity  in  their  adult  age,  have  a  right  to  theordinance 
of  baptifm  :  But  as  there  are  none  among  us  that 
diipute  their  right,  unlefs  it  be  thofe  that  deny  wa-^ 
ter- baptifm,  it  is  needlefsat  prtfent.  I  have  only 
two  heads  that  appear  ncceflary  to  difcourfe  upon 
this  day  to  you  ;  in  both  which  I  defign,  by  the 
help  of  God,  to  be  clear  and  uftiul.  And  O  that 
my  bltfTed  Mafter  would  {land  by  me,  and  give 
me  all  the  light,  fimplicity  and  fortitude,  needful 
to  the  undertaking,  and  the  occafion  of  it.  Ii> 
dependence  upon  his  help,  I  fay, 

I,  "  Baptifm  with  water  is  an  ordinance  of 

J*  God,  to  be  continued  in  the  Chriflian  church  td 

^  ^  ^ "  the 


^ 


S  Infaiif  Bapfifm  vindicated. 

**  the  end  of  the  world.  **  Some  have  imagined 
that  baptifm  with  water  was  nothing  but  an  exter- 
nal ceremony  J  indulged  by  the  apoftles  to  the  firfl 
Chriftians,  in  condefcenlion  to  the  cuftom  which 
obtained  among  the  Jews ;  and  therefore  that  it  is 
not  a  command  ofChrift.  Bucaltho'  we  (hail  not 
deny  that  there  was  an  ufage  among  the  Jews,  limi- 
lar  to  baptifm,  a  fort  of  an  appendix  to  circumcifi* 
on,  yet  we  affirm  it  was  not  a  facramental  inftituti- 
on,  until  Chrill:  made  it  fo.  But  when  Chrift  came^ 
and  would  introduce  a  new  difpenfation  of  the  co-" 
venant  of  grace,  he  appointed  baptifm  with  water 
to  be  the  ieal  of  initiation,  and  rejeded  circumcifi- 
cn,  which  had  been  the  initiating  feal  under  the 
former  difpenfation. 

None  that  will  honcflly  attend  to  the  account 
given  in  fcripture  of  this  holy  ordinance,  can  pof- 
fibly  doubt  whether  Water  is  to  be  ufed  in  the  ^d- 
miniilration  of  it.  Will  any  read  the  account  of 
our  Saviour's  baptifm,  or  of  the  apoftles  going  un- 
to water,  with  thofe  that  were  converted  to  the 
Chriilian  faith,  to  baptize  them,  and  yet  pretend  a 
doubt,  whether  water  was  ufed  in  the  adminiftra- 
tion  ?  or  can  it  be  imagined,  that  when  Peter  faw 
the  deep  imprefiion  which  the  word  had  upon  the 
believing  Jews  and  others,  and  fiid,  "Can  any  man 
*'  forbid  water,  that  thefe  fhould  not  be  baptized, 
*••  and  commanded  them  to  be  baptized,"  the  ele^ 
ment  of  water  was  not  ufed  in  the  adminiflration 
of  this  holy  ordinance  ?  No  :  the  cleareft  manifef- 
tations  of  divine  grace,  and  the  extraordinary  gifts 
of  the  Holy  Ghofl:  conferred  upon  men,  were  fo 
far  from  fetting  them  above  water-baptifm,  that 
thefe  laid  an  obligation  upon  them  to  fubmit  to 

it. 


Infant  Babi'ifm  'vindicated,  p 

it  *.  Some  might  have  /aid  with  regard  to  the 
Jews,  thefe  have  been  circumcifed,  why  therefore 
fhould  they  be  baptized  ?  but  the  anAver  would 
have  been  eafy  ;  it  was  becaufe  circumciiion  was 
aboliflied,  and  baptifm  was  the  feai  of  introdiKflion 
into  the  Chridian  church. --Others  might  have  faid, 
fincc  the  Gentiles  had  received  the  Holy  Ghoft, 
what  need  was  there  cf  baptizing  them  with  water  ? 
but  Peter  virtually  teaches  us,  that  water-baptifm 
is  the  door  of  admiffion  into  the  vifible  church 
now,  as  circumciiion  was  formerly.  Who  then  cm 
forbid  this  plain  fign  and  feal  of  the  covenant  unto 
thofe  that  have  received  the  tiling  fignifisd  ?  when 
according  to  promifc,  God  pours  out  his  Spirit  up- 
on the  Gentiles,  and  grafts  them  into  the  good 
olive  tree,  who  can  forbid  this  teflimony  and  fcal 
'of  it  ? 

Neither  was  this  an  ufage  of  the  firft  Chrirti..ns 
only,  but  it  Vv^as  infiituted  for  the  ufe  of  the  church 
in  all  aees,  to  the  end  of  the  world  5  as  the  ordina- 
ry medium  of  gathering  and  preferving  the  churcli, 
out  of  every  nation  and  people.  This,  I  apprehend, 
is  evident  from  the  commiiTion  which  Chrift  gave 
the  apoftles,  "  Go  yc  therefore  and  teach  all  nation?, 
"  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
'*  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Gholl:  :  teaching  them 
"  to  obferveall  things  whatfoevcr  I  command  you, 
**  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  aKvay,  even  unto  tlie  end 
"  of  the  world."  This  commiilion  is  given  pri- 
marily to  the  apodles,  as  they  laid  the  foundation 
of  the  Chrifljan  church.  But  did  it  terminate  with 
them  \  No  :  it  is  alfo  given  to  all  niinif-ers  ot  the 
gofpel  to  the  end  of  the  world.     God  had  prom i fed 

B  a  fuccefilon 

*     ^iXi  X.   45---^S. 


10         Infant  Bapt'ifm  'vindicated, 

a  fucceffion  of  minirters  and  churches  to  the  end  of 
time,  that  the  throne  and  feed  of  Chriil  might  en- 
dure forever  *.  When  therefore  theapoiiies  had 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  church,  ordinary  mini- 
ilers  were  appointed  to  build  it  up.  To.  this  end 
Chrift  hath  given  **  payors  and  teachers"  J,  by 
whofe  minifiry  he  might  difciple  and  inflruft  men 
in  the  Chriftian  faiih,  till  all  the  eledt  among  ail 
nations,  "  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of 
"  the  iinowledge  of  the  Son  of  God  unto  a  perfe-ft 
'*  man,  unto  the  meafure  of  the  ftatiire  of  the  ful- 
•*  nefs  of  Chriil:/'  God  v/as  able  to  do  this,  with- 
out the  inflrumentality  of  any  man,  or  order  of  menj 
but  it  hasplcafed  him  to  appoint  a  fuccelTion  of  mi- 
niflers,  thereby  to  beget  elieem,  love, and  reverence 
to  his  gofpel.  And  thete  miniilershe  has  command- 
ed to  charge  all  men,  to  oblerve  all  things  whatfo- 
ever  Chrifl:  commanded  them.  And  was  not  this 
one  thing  that  Chrift  had  com.manded,  viz.  thaf 
they  fhould  baptize  all  meet  fubjeds,  and  fo  bring 
them  under  the  bonds  of  the  covenant?  If  they 
were  to  teach  them  to  obferve  all  things  enjoined, 
they  were  not  only  to  teach  them  all  the  duties  of 
the  moral  law,  but  all  the  ordinances  of  the  gofpel, 
one  of  which  is  baptifm,  as  appears  from  the  words 
of  our  Saviour  Jefus  Chrift  in  the  commiffion.— » 
And  it  is  evident  that  the  apoAles  underftood  it  to 
be  a  ftanding  ordinance  in  the  church  j  for  they 
not  only  adminiilered  it  themfelves  after  the  afcen- 
iion  of  Chrift,  but  others,  by  their  appointment, 
admitted  members  into  the  church  by  that  folemn 
rite-f-.     And  indeed^  the  reafon  of  the  thing  fup- 

pofes 


*  Ifaiah  lix.    21.  %  Eph.  iv.    n,   jj,  f  Afts  xvi.  14, 

35,  33.  with  i  Cor.  i.  X4j  15,  16. 


Infant  Baptifm  'vindicated,  i  \ 

pofes  the  continuance  of  this  ordinar.ce  in  the  Chrif- 
tian  church  ;  for  if  God  has  rencvved  his  covenant 
of  grace  under  the  Chi  iftian  difpenfation,  and  e- 
flabliflied  it  upon  clearer  promiics,  wAvj  is  it  not 
as  necefTiry  to  feal  the  covenant  by  water-baptiiiu 
now,  as  it  was  in  the  beginning  of  the  Chiiftian 
ftate? 

But,  I  apprehend,  enoueh  has  been  offered,  to 
prove  that  baptilm  with  water  is  an  ordinance  of 
God,  to  be  adminiftercd  aiid  received  in  all  ages, 
to  the  end  of  time.  And  hence  it  follows,  that 
"  thofe  are  under  a  judicial  infatuation,  who,  pro- 
**  feffing  to  have  great  meafures  of  light  and  grace, 
"  deny  the  facraments  of  the  New  Teiiament,  and 
"  particularly  that. of  baptifm  with  water."  It  is 
a  great  fin  for  any,  to  fet  light  by  any  holy  inPiitu- 
tion  of  Chrifl  j  and  flill  a  greater  fin  to  deny  one, 
under  a  pretence  of  great  meafures  of  light  and 
fpirituality.  Nor  can  we  \\  \k\\  any  good  reafon 
fuppofe,  that  thofe  who  deny  this  ordinance  in  par- 
ticular, under  a  notion  of  fpirituality,  are  not  de- 
luded J  for  the  Spirit  of  God  never  teaches  any 
man  contrary  to  the  written  word.  Our  Saviour 
teaches  us,  that  it  is  a  thing  not  to  be  imagined, 
that  fatan  il^ould  fight  againfi  himfelf,  becaufe  tlmt 
would  ruin  his  kiuL^dom*  ;  and  methinks  men  muft 
put  out  their  eyes  in  order  to  believe,  that  the  Spi- 
rit of  God  (hould  teach  one  thing  in  the  written 
Vv'ord,  and  the  contrary  by  his  influences  on  the 
heart,  becaufe  that  would  be  cppofing  himf^df. 
How  then  can  we  find  grounds  to  tliink,  that  thofe 
are  influenced  by  the  lame  fpirit  that  indited  the 

fcrip- 

*  Mat.  »;i.  26,  27. 


1 2         Infant  EapUjin  "vindicated, 

fcrlptures,  who  cry  down  outward  ordinances, 
which  are  plainly  enjoined  in  the  fcriptures  ?  What 
reafon  can  be  aiHgned,  why  men  fl;iould  believe 
that  fuch  wild  imaginations  ought  to  be  efteemed 
of  equal  authority  with  the  writings  of  our  Savi- 
our and  his  apoftles  ?  truly,  no  reafon  at  all :  but 
we  ought,  in  honour  to  God  and  his  written  word, 
to  judge  that  all  fuch  perfons  are  under  ftrong  de- 
lulions ;  left  to  themfelves :  and  if  thev  continue 
under  fuch  delufions,  we  cannot  fafely  think  but 
they  "  hate  the  light"  of  the  gofpel,  and  wilful- 
}y  refufe  to  come  to  the  light,  lefl:  their  confciences 
lliould  reprove  them  :  for,  if  they  were  true  Ifra- 
elites,  they  would  receive  the  written  revelation, 
"  not  as  the  word  of  men,  but,  as  it  is  in  truth, 
the  word  of  God,  which  worketh  eiFe(Stually"  in 
^all  them  that  believe. 

But  we  mdft  haden  to  the  main  thing  in  view, 
which  is  to  confider, 

IL  That  "  the  infants  of  fuch  as  are  members 
*'  of  the  vifible  church,  have  a  right  to  baptifm." 
Had  the  church  of  Chrifl  in  this  place,  and  in  the 
neighbourhood,  been  left  to  their  Chriftian  prac- 
tice, agreeable  to  fcripture  and  primitive  ufage,  it 
might  have  faved  me  this  labour,  and  prevented 
many  mifchiefs,  which,  I  fear,  will  come  upon 
you .  But  the  late  innovations  that  have  been  palm- 
ed upon  you , '  I  look  upon  as  a  providential  call  to 
fland  in  this  place,  for  the  defence  of  the  right  of 
infant  baptifm.  And  tho'  the  church  might  have 
had  greater  benefit  by  an  abler  hand,  yet,  as  an  af- 
fectionate friend  to  the  truth,  I  hope  God  will  own 
me  while  I  honeflly  endeavour  to  fupport  his  fink- 
ing 


Infa?2t  Eapt'ifm  vindicated,         i  q 

ing  caufe.  Let  us  give  an  unbialTed  attention  to 
fome  evidences  that  may  be  offered,  to  {how  the 
right  of  infant  baptilm.  And  I  defire  you  would 
hear  me  patiently  and  carefully  upon  every  argu- 
ment, that  if  one  (hould  not  be  fatisfying,  per- 
haps, another  may  j  if  light  does  not  convince  you 
this  morning,  it  may  in  the  afternoon. 

Arg.  I.  **  If  the  infants  of  viiible  believers  do 
"  alio  belong  to  the  vifible  church  themlelves,  then 
'*  they  are  to  be  baptized  :  but  the  infants  of  vi- 
*'  fible  believers  are  alfo  members  of  the  vifible 
'*  churcli  themfelves :  therefore  the  infants  of  vi- 
*'  lible  believers  arc  to  be  baptized." 

That  all  might  fully  under/land  my  meaning, 
I  defire  it  might  be  obferved,  that  by  infants  be- 
longing to,  or,  being  members  of  the  vifible 
church,  I  do  not  intend  that  they  have  the 
badge  cr  feal  of  their  memberfhip  put  upon  them 
when  they  are  firft  born,  but  in  a  qualified  fenfe 
they  are  members  :  as  a  fon  born  in  the  army  is 
the  king's  foldier,  or  a  child  born  in  the  king's  do- 
minions is  the  king's  fubjecll ;  tho'  the  former  is 
not  aBually  inliffed,  nor  the  latter  formally  decla- 
red to  be  fc.  So  the  children  of  vifible  believers  arc 
members  of  the  vifible  church  as  foon  as  they  are 
born  into  the  world,  before  they  have  the  badge 
of  church  memberfhip  put  upon  them,  or  have 
the  feal  of  the  covenant  put  upon  them.  If  a  per- 
fon  did  in  no  fenfe  at  all  belong  to  the  vifible  church, 
how  could  he,  with  any  propriety,  have  the  token 
of  mem.berihip  put  upon  him  ?  Is  it  not  in  con- 
lequence  of  a  perfon's  being  a  vifible  member,  that 
he  has  the  token  put  upon  him^  which  is  the  com- 
mon 


Tif.         Infant  Baptifm  vindicated.   ^^P 

mon  right  of  all  vifible  members,  and  by  which  ^^ 
token  or  mark  they  are  diftinguifhed  from  others  >  ^ 
And  is  not  baptifm  ihe  token  of  vifible  men:iber- 
ihip,  by  which  Chrift  would  have  his  vifible  church 
diftinguiOied  from  the  refl:  of  the  world  ?  I  pre- 
fume  none  of  our  neighbours  who  deny  infant  bap- 
tifm, will  pretend  that  there  is  any  other  way  of 
admiiTion  into  the  vinble  church,  either  from  pre- 
cept or  example,  fince  Jefus  Chrifl  appointed  this 
holy  ordinance.  But  ii  they  iiould  pretend  fome 
other  Vv'ay,  they  may  fee  tiienifelves  miftaken,  by 
coniidering,  that  all  the  admituons  we  read  of,  fince 
baptifm  was  a  diviiie  infiitution,  were  by  this  to- 
ken or  feai  of  the  covenant.  As  evidence  of  this, 
I  would  refer  them  to  the  three  thoufand*,  to  Si- 
mon. Magus  and  the  eunuch-j-,  to  Paul  J,  to.  Ste- 
phanus  and  his  houfhould**,  to  Lydia,  the  Jailor,^ 
and  their  hou(hould§.  All  thefe  were  brought  in- 
to the  church  by  the  feal  of  baptifm  j  and  I  be- 
lieve none  can  tell  of  any  other  way. Nor  have 

we  any  warrant,  from  the  word  of  God,  to  delay 
the  adminiftration  of  this  ordinance  to  fuch  as  are 
members,  until  they  are  indodfrinated  in  the  Chrif- 
tian  faith,  and  are  capable  of  underftanding  the  na- 
ture of  the  ordinance.  All  the  fcripture  examples 
of  admiffion  are  levelled  againfc  delays.  No  foon- 
cr  did  thofe  already  mentioned  belong  to  the  vifii- 
ble  church,  but  they  were  baptized.  Nor  can  any 
man  living;  prove,  that  all  thefe  were  adult  perfons: 
no ;  .fo  far  from  it,  that  there  is  no  reafon  to  think 
they  were  fo,  but  much  reafon  to  believe  the  con- 
trary. But  v;hether  they  were,  or  were  not,  we 
are  alTured  that  it  is  the  will  of  God,  that  difciples 

of 

*  A<?cs  ii.         \  chap.  Viii.        %  ciiap.  ix.         **   i  Cur.  i.  6". 
§  A<Ss  xvi. 


Infant   Baptifm  vindicated,        l^ 


of  Chrifl:  (Lould  bs  baptized  without  delay,  as  we 
/hall  conlider  by  and  by. 

In  the  mean  time,  what  is  mainly  before  me, 
upon  this  argument,  is  to  prove,  "  That  infants 
•*  of  vKible  believers  or  church  members,  are  al- 
**  fo  themfelves  members  of  the  viiible  church, 
"  and  therefore  ought  to  have  the  feal  of  induc- 
**  tion  put  upon  them/'  And  this,  I  apprehend, 
will  appear  to  every  unprejudiced  mind,  by  a  care- 
ful attendance  to  a  few  things,  luch  as  thefe  fol-* 
lowing,  viz, 

I.  "  God  never  made  a  covenant  with  man, 
**  but  what  included  his  ieed."  We  have  two  co- 
venants reprefented  to  us  in  the  holy  fcripture, 
i;/z.  a  covenant  of  works  and  a  covenant  of  grace  ^ 
and  in  both  thefe  God  has  covenanted  with  man 
and  his  feed. 

Thus  God  entered  into  a  covenant  of  works 
with  y^Jam  and  his  feed.  Adam  was  the  root  of 
all  mankind,  and  his  poderity  were  the  branches, 
God  entered  into  a  covenant  of  life  wi;h  him,  bind- 
ing him  and  his  pofterity  unto  himfelf,  with  this 
condition,  **  he  that  doth  thefe  things  fliall  live  of 
•*  them."  And  all  his  feed  being  ill  him  as  their 
covenant'head,  fell  with  him  in  the  tirfl:  tranfgref- 
fion.  His  a61:  was  imputed  to  them  j  his  guilt  was 
imputed  to  them,  fo  that  as  foon  us  his  pofterity  are 
born  into  the  world,  they  are  condemned.  The 
whole  nature  of  man  then  fubfified  in  Adam,  and 
his  enormous  crimes  tainted  his  blood.  **  By  one 
"  man  fin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by 
V  fin,  fo  death  pafied  upon  all  men,  for  that  all 

"  have 


'1 6        Infant  Bapfifm  vindicated, 

*'  have  finned."  As  the  bleffings  ofFered  in  thk 
covenant  to  Adam  and  his  feed,  would  have  been 
fecured  to  them  had  he  continued  in  his  integritj^ 
fo  the  curfe  falls  upon  all  his  pofterity  by  his  dif- 
obedience  ;  no  fooncr  are  they  human  creatures, 
but  they  are  morally  defiled  and  guilty  creatures. 
*'  How  is  the  gold  become  dim !  how  is  the  moft 
**  fine  gold  changed  ?'* 

Upon  the  apoftafy,  God  entered  into  a  covenant 
of  grace  to  deliver  men  out  of  an  eftate  of  fin  and 
Enifery,  and  to  bring  them  into  an  eflate  of  falvati- 
on  by  a  Redeemer.  This  covenant  of  grace  was 
primarily  and  principally  with  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift 
as  the  fecond  Adam :  and  therefore  he  is  called  the 
furety  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  to  adjufl  and  make 
up  the  difference  between  God  and  his  people. 
But  altho*  the  covenant  of  grace  is  primarily  made 
with  Chrift,  as  the  reprefentative  of  his  feed,  yet, 
in  him,  it  is  made  with  believers  or  with  his  feed. 
Hence  they  are  faid  "  to  enter  into  covenant  *  j" 
to  "  keep  covenant  •!•  j"  to  "  break  the  covenant  J;'* 
and  many  fuch  like  exprefiions ;  fnewing  that  the 
covenant  of  grace  is  made  with  believers. — And 
parents  that  are  believers,  have  their  children  ta- 
ken into  covenant  with  them.  Whenever  God 
has  taken  parents  into  his  family  and  kingdom,  he 
has  taken  in  their  children  with  them,  and  has 
reckoned  them  a  part  of  his  family.  Therefore 
all  the  people  of  Ifrael,  young  and  old,  male  and 
female,  are  called  "  the  children  of  the  Lord  your 
•*  God**j"  adopted  children,  owned  by  God  as 
his  people ;  a  people  near  to  him,  fet  apart  for  him. 
Hence,  God  direded  Mofes  to  fay  unto  Pharaoh, 

"  Ifrael 

*Pf.  1.  5.      f^f,  XXV.  10.     J  Lev.xivi,  15.     **Dem.  xiv.  i. 


Infant   Baptifm  vindicated,         17 

**  Ifrael  is  my  Son,  even  my  firfl-born*;"  preci- 
ous in  my  flight,  and  dear  to  me,  tho'  there  were 
many  in  Ifrael  that  were  enemies  to  God  and  chil- 
dren of  the  devil ;  but  were  taken  into  covenant 
in  the  right  of  their  parents,  and,  in  thiit  i^.A^^ 
"  beloved  for  their  father's  fake." 

■  « 
I  am  fenfible  that  Antimonians  will  objed  and 
fay,  "  That  it  is  not  poffible  for  a  perfon  to  be 
•*  under  the  covenant  of  grace  and  the  covenant 
*'  of  works  at  the  fame  time ;  to  be  p  ecious  in 
*'  the  light  of  God,  and  yet  haters  of  God  ;  to  be 
**  children  of  the  devil,  and  children  of  God  at 
**  once.  Hcjw  then  can  the  preceeding  account 
•*  be  reconciled  ?'* 

In  anfwer  to  this  objedlion  ;  I  grant,  that  as  to 
the  ft  ate  of  perfons,  all  are  either  renewed  or  unre- 
newed 5  in  a  flate  cf  nature  or  in  a  ftatc  of  grace  : 
they  belong  either  to  the  firft  or  the  fecond  Adavi^ 
*'  It  is  as  impoffible  for  a  perfon  to  be  under  both 
covenants  at  once,  as  it  is  for  a  man  to  be  born  of 
two  mothers."  For  the  terms  of  the  covenants 
are  diredly  oppofite  to  each  other  :  and  therefore, 
if  a  perfon  is  admitted  into  the  covenant  of  grace, 
by  effedual  calling,  he  is  certainly  cut  off  from  the 
covenant  of  works  5  for  *'  if  it  is  by  grace"  that  a 
perfon  is  faved,  *'  then  it  is  no  more  of  works ;  o- 
"  therways  grace  is  no  more  grace.  But  if  it  be 
**  of  works,  then  it  is  no  more  grace :  otherways 
"  work  is  no  more  work." — But  this  hinders  not 
but  a  perfon  may  be  in  a  gracelefs  flate,  and  yet 
enjoy  many  and  great  external  privileges  of  the 
church,  which  belong  to  thofe  whom  God  has 

C  feparated 

■—      —  ■^ ■■  -  —    ■  .-■■     ■        -   -       -  .        ■  ■  —  — 


i§        Lifard  Baptifm  vindicated, 

ieparated  to  himfelf,  to  make  known  his  fiame  2* 
mong  them.  Tho'  outward  privileges  avail  no-* 
tiling  to  fpsclal  grace,  any  further  than  means  of 
God's  appointing  ;  yet  they  are  privileges,  and  do 
advance  people  above  others,  which  lome  are  fa- 
voured with,  as  ftewards,  to  improve  and  tranf- 
mit  to  others.  Paul  reckoned  the  privileges  of  the 
Jewiili  church  very  great,  even  thofe  that  were 
external  *.  To  be  dignified  and  diftinguilhed  by 
vifible  church  privilege?;  to  have  the  fymbols  of 
the  divine  piefence  j  the  word  and  facraments  ;  to 
enjoy  the  means  of  grace,  and  be  feparated  from 
others  as  the  covenant-people  of  Godj  is  a  v^x'f 
great  favour.  Now,  all  thefe  privileges  did  be- 
long to  the  body  of  the  Jews,  of  all  azes,  as  the 
covenant-people  of  God  ;  even  to  them  that  never 
received  any  faving  benefit  by  them,  as  well  as  o- 
thers.  It  is  one  thing  to  inherit  the  faving  grace 
jpf  the  covenant,  and  another  to  enjoy  the  outward 
privileges  of  it.  All  the  feed  of  vifible  believers 
have  a  right  to  many  of  the  external  privileges  of 
the  covenant,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  parents  to  cLiai 
thefe  privileges  for  them. 

ir.  "  The  Abrahamick  covenant,  including  the 
*'  feed  of  vifible  believers,  is  the  covenant  of  grace.'* 
The  words  exprels  it  with  fo  much  clearnefs,  that 
iiot)e  who  have  any  tolerable  underfl^anding  of  the 
two  covenants,  and  read  with  unprejudiced  atten- 
tion, can  doubt  whether  it  be  the  covenant  of 
grace.  '^  I  will  eftablidi  my  covenant  between 
**  me  and  thee,  and  thy  feed  after  thee,  in  your 
*'  generations,  for  an  everlafting  covenant,  to  be 
"  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  feed  after  thee  -f ." 
It 

*  Horn,  ix,  4.  t  G^^'  ^^^^'  7' 


Infant  BapUfm  vindicated.  ip 

If  was  a  covenant  never  to  be  revoked  ;  fixed  and 
ratified  as  firm  as  the  divine  power  and  truth  could 
make  it.  It  was  a  covenant  fettled,  with  regard 
to  the  rule  of  defcent;  not  to  him,  and  tb.eu  die; 
but  to  him,  and  his  feed  after  him,  in  their  gene- 
rations. Befides,  God  m^kes  over  iiimself  to 
Abr  ham  and  to  his  feed  in  this  covenant,  which 
he  never  has  done  in  the  covenant  of  works,  fince 
man's  apoftafy.  And  having  fettled  the  tenor  of 
the  covenant,  he  confirmed  und  ratified  it  by  the 
ceremony  of  circumciiion,  the  feaiino;  ordinance 
under  that  difpenfati(5n.  This  Panl  tells  u?,  *'  wr;S 
"  a  feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  faith  *  j"  or  ji!:- 
tification  by  faith  ;  and  the  righteoufnefs  of  faith 
and  that  of  works  are  oppofites,  and  therefore  can- 
not belong  to  one  and  the  fame  covenant. 

I  am  fenfibte,  '  that  fome  have  devifed  feveral 
fchemes,  to  evade  the  force  of  plain  fcripture  evi- 
dence in  this  matter.  But  if  they  fliould  fay  that 
it  was  "  a  covenant  to  ftcure  the  land  of  Canaan 
unto  Abraham  and  his  pofteiity,"  as  fome  pretend; 
then  I  would  afk  them,  how  it  comes  to  pafs  that 
the  feal  of  the  covenant  was  adminiftered  to  pro- 
fel)ites,  feeing  no  ff  ranger  had  any  right  to  the  land 
of  Canaan-f-  ?  And  altho'  God  promifed  Canaan, 
yet  was  this  the  principal  and  moft  valuable  part  of* 
the  promife  ;  or,  livill  be  a  God  to  thee,  and  thy 
Jeed  after  thee  ?  Do  not  thofe  that  make  fuch  an 
evafion  as  this,  difcover  very  mean  and  defpicablc 
thoughts  of  the  glorious  God,  and  of  the  heaven- 
ly Canaan  j  and  an  exceffive  value  for  an  earthly 

inheritance  ? Some  again  call  it  a  mixt  cove- 

jianr,  partly  of  works,  and  partly  of  grace  ;  and 

fometinies 
*  Rom.  iv.   II.     f  E,xod.  iii,  4t', 


20       Infant  Baptifm  vindicated, 

fometimes  a  covenant  of  works  only.  But  the  a- 
poftle  Paul  abundantly  difproves  thisabfurd  notion^ 
by  urging  the  lability  of  the  covenant  which  God 
made  with  Abraham.  Tho'  Abraham  and  the  pro- 
phets are  dead,  the  covenant  is  flill  of  force,  and 
can  never  be  vacated  ;  and  why  ?  becaufe  Chrifh  a- 
bides  for  ever  in  his  perfon,  and  in  his  members*. 
And  if  any  {hould  objedt,  that  the  law  which  was 
given  by  Mofes  could  difannul  the  covenant,  under 
a  notion  of  its  being  a  covenant  of  works,  the  a- 
poftle  fays,  that  the  fubfequent  law  could  not  dif- 
annul the  precedent  covenant*  and  eftabliJi  a  diffe- 
rent way  of  juftification,  from  that  which  was  fet- 
tled by  the  covenant  of  grace  5  but  the  great  delign 
of  both  the  moral  and  ceremonial  lav/  too,  was  to 
fubferve  the  covenant  which  was  made  with  Abra* 
ham ;  as  it  was  adapted  to  convince  men  of  their 
undone  condition,  and  the  infufficiency  of  their 
own  righteoufnefs  to  commend  them  to  God,  and 
to  point  out  Chrift,  the  facrifice  of  atonement  for 
the  expiation  of  fin  -f».  If  this  is  not  the  plaift 
fenfe  of  the  apoftle,  why  are  believers  called  "  A« 
*'  braham*s  feed  J  ?  **  why  are  they  called  heir& 
according  to  the  promife?  how  come  they  *•  blef- 
*'  fed  with  faithful  Abraham**?"  and  how  came 
the  bieffing  of  Abraham  to  defcend  upon  the  Gen» 
tiles? 

If  thefe  things  are  duly  confidered,  I  think  k 
will  be  very  evident,  that  the  Abrahamick  cove- 
nant was  the  covenant  of  grace ;  and  for  that  rea- 
fon  it  is  called  an  everlafting  covenant,  being  fo  la 
its  duration. 

III.  "  The 

*  Gal.  iii.  17,  18.    '"  t  Se.e  Gai.  iii.  19,24.        jiver.  23. 
**  Gal.  iii.  9,  14, 


Infant  Baptifm  vindicated,  2t 

III.  "  The  grant  ii,i  the  Abrahamick  covenantj 
"  made  to  his  feed,  has  never  been  repealed.'*  If, 
by  divine  appointment,  the  gift  of  church  mem- 
berJ  ip,  and  the  token  of  the  covenant,  did  belong 
to  the  infants  of  vifible  believers,  under  the  former 
difpenf^tion  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  if  the 
fame  law  or  rule  abides  in  force  (till ;  then  the  in- 
fants of  believers  under  the  prefent  difpenfation  of 
the  covenant,  have  an  equal  right  now,  and  ought 
to  be  admitted  by  the  feal  of  the  covenant.  But 
this  gifc  has  never  been  repealed :  God  has  no  where 
in  his  holy  word  reverfed  this  order ;  no  where  ta- 
ken away  this  privilege.  God  has  changed  the  to- 
ken of  indudion,  but  not  the  fubjeds :  there  is  not 
the  leafl  intimation  that  the  infant  feed  of  vifible 
believers  are  "  caft  out  of  the  covenant,  or  cut  off 
*'  from  the  privilege  of  having  it  fealed  to  them." 
But,  on  the  contrary,  the  vifible  ad  mini  ft  ration  and 
blefljngs  belong  to  vifible  believers  and  their  feed. 
And  this,  I  apprehend,  is  abundantly  evident,  from 
the  eleventh  chapter  to  the  Bomans.  For  in  that 
chapter  the  apoftle  is  treating  of  the  rejedlion  of  the 
Jews  from  a  vifible  church  Hate,  for  their  unbelief 
manifefi:ed  in  rejeding  Chrift,  and  of  the  goodnefs 
and  mercy  of  God  exprefied  with  his  feverity  there^ 
in.  Many  of  the  Jewifli  nation  did  entertain  Chrift; 
a  remnant  obtained  righteoufnefs  and  life  by  him : 
but  the  main  body  of  them  rejeded  him ;  they  fliut 
their  eyes  and  would  not  fee,  and  then  God  in  righ- 
teous judgment  blinded  their  eyes  that  they  could 
not  fee,  and  fo  were  broken  off  from  that  vifible 
church  ftate.  This  indeed  feemed  harili  dodrinc, 
but  if  you  attend  to  wlfat  is  written,  it  will  appear 
to  be  the  main  argument  of  the  apoftle  in  the  fore- 
part of  the  chapter.      But  to  qualify  this  dodrine 

of 


$2  Infant  Baptifm  vindicated, 

of  the  reje(5^ion  of  the  Jews,  he  fays,  that  tha'  they 
were  caft  off  and  unchurched,  yet  the  Gentiles  were 
taken  in,  and  their' rejecf^ion  was  not  final,  but  the 
time  would  come,  when  they  fliould  be  reftored  to 
their  church  ftate  and  privileges  again.  Some  of 
them  fhould  remain  in  their  vifible  church  ftate ; "  a 
*'  remnant,  according  to  the  eledion  of  grace*  ;** 
a  few  chofen  veffels  he  continued  in  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham  and  his  feed.  Abraham  was 
the  root  of  the  Jewifh  church ;  not  the  root  of  com- 
munication, but  the  root  of  adminifiration,  *'  he 
'^  being  the  firft  with  whom  the  covenant  was  {o 
*'  folemnly  made.*'  The  olive  tree  is  the  vifible 
church  J  the  Lord  calls  its  name  a  green  olive  tree-f-. 
Tho'  we  apply  it  to  union  with  Chiid,  yet  it  is 
fpoken  of  a  vifible  church  ftate.  And  by  the  "  root 
and  fatnefs'*  of  the  olive  tree,  we  muft  underftand 
the  promifes  and  privileges  v^hich  belong  to  the  vi- 
able church.  Now  the  believing  Gentiles  partiike 
of  this  root,  and  therefore  Paul  fays,  "  the  blef- 
•'  fing  of  Abraham  is  come  upon  the  GentilesJ.'* 
i^nd  hence,  "  the  fame  fatnefs  of  the  olive  tree, 
"  the  fame  for  fubftance,  inftituted  ordinances,  and 
*'  vifible  church  memberfhip  of  infant  feed,  which 
«'  was  part  of  the  fatnefs  of  the  olive  tree  that  the 
■*'  Jews  had,  cannot  be  denied  to  the  Gentiles." 

Having  given  the  general  meaning  of  the  apoflle, 
let  us  reafon  upon  it  in  the  manner  following,  vix, 
Iffomeonly  were  brc  ken  oflr",  then  the  grant  of 
church  memberfhip  is  not  repealed,  as  to  them  and 
their  feed  that  remained,  or  were  not  broken  off: 
l)ut  Faui  affares  us,  that  foilie  only  were  broken  off: 

it 

♦  Gal.  iii.  f.  f  J^^^'  ^'^^  ^^'  X  ^^^'  "'*  H- 


Infant  Baptifm  vindicated,  25 

k  follows  therefore  by  Invincible  confequcnce,  t^at 
the  grant  of  church  membcrihip  remains  unrepeJ- 
€(i  to  them  that  werejbroken  off.  It  was  one  evi- 
dent delign  of  the  apoftle  to  prove,  that  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  Jews  was  not  total.  The  moft  of  then^ 
rejecled  Chrift,  and  therefore  were  broken  off  from 
a  vifible  church  ftate  and  its  external  privileges  ; 
but  a  remnant  according  to  the  eleifiion  of  grace 
remained.  Now,  I  fay,  if  fome  only  were  bro- 
ken off",  then  to  them  that  remain,  the  right  of 
church  memberfliip  and  its  privileges  remain  un- 
repealed.^ 

But,  will  any  pretend  that  all  infants  were  among 
the  number  that  were  broken  oft'?  this  indeed 
would  not  be  more  abfurdi,  than  fome  things  that 
1  have  met  with  inftead  of  argument.  But  I  defire 
fuch  would  confider  the  apoftle's  reafoning  in  the 
chapter  referred  to,  and  they  may  eafily  fee  that 
he  is  quite  againft  them.  As  children  come  into 
a  vifible  church  ftate  in  the  right  of  their  pa- 
rents, fo  they  are  not  caft  out  while  their  parents 
continue  members  of  the  vifible  church,  unlefs^ 
by  their  own  adlual  fins,  they  cut  themfelves  off. 
Further,  confider  what  Paul  fays,  *'  becaufe  of 
*'  unbelief  they  were  broken  off,  and  thou  ffand- 
"  eft  by  faith*.  '*  Now  if  it  was  not  an  a6t  of 
mere  fovereignty,  that  fome  were  broken  oft^from 
a  church  ftate  and  its  privileges,  but  for  their  un- 
belief J  then  the  believing  Jews  and  their  feed 
were  not  broken  off  ;  therefore  the  ftate  and  privi- 
leges remain  to  them,  and  to  their  feed  ;  /.  e.  they 
are  not  repealed  ;  or  otherways  the  infants  of  be- 
lieving Jews  were  broken  off,  for  the  unbelief  of 
other  men.  Now, 

*   Gal.    iii,    20. 


Hj^  Infant   Baptifm  vindicatedi- 

"Now,  fays  Paul,  the  reje£^ian  of  the  Jews 
made  room  for  the  Gentiles  ;  the  wild  olive  tree 
was,  contrary  to  natare,  grafted  into  the  true  olive*  • 
the  true  church,  from  which  the  unbelieving  Jews 
had  been  broken  off,  and  this  church  received  f  p 
and  virtue  from  the  root.  And  if  this  is  really  tho 
cafe;  if  the  Gentiles  are  grafted  into  the  fame 
church,  from  which  the  Jews  were  broken  off, 
then  the  infants  have  the  fame  right  of  church 
memberfhip  that  theirs  had  j  and  therefore  the 
right  of  church  memberfhip  is  not  taken  away  from 
the  infants  of  believing  Gentiles. 

Arg.  II.  "  It  is  the  will  of  God  that  the  dif- 
**  ciples  of  Chrift  fhould  be  baptized  ;  but  th6 
**  infants  of  vifible  believers,  or  of  fuch  as  are 
"  members  of  the  vifible  church,  are  difciples  of 
**  Chrift  J  therefore  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  they 
"  iliould  be  baptized." 

The  firfl  propofition  of  this  argument  is  found- 
ed upon  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jefus,  in  his  com-» 
miflion  to  miniflers  :  **  Go,  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them — teaching  them,  &c.''  together 
with  Paul's  words,  "  the  fcripture  forefeeing  that 
•*  God  would  juftify  the  heathen  thro'  fiith,  preach- 
•^  ed  before  the  gofpel  unto  Abraham,  faying,  in 
*'  the«  fhall  all  nations  be  bleffed.  So  then  they 
•'  which  be  of  faith,  are  bleffed  with  faithful  A- 
•*  braham.**  From  hence  obferve,  iT?,  That 
miniflcrs  of  Chrift  are  fent  to  teach  people  the  co^ 
▼enant  which  God  made  with  Abraham.  The 
promife  was  made  to  Abraham  and  his  feed  ;  and 
miniflers  are  bound  to  teach  the  whole  of  the  co- 
venant, 

*    Gal,   iii.  16,  17. 


Infant  Baptlfm  'vindicated,  25 

venant,  of  which  this  is  one  part  ;  and  they  are 
alfo  to  baptize,  or  adminifter  the  feal  of  induction, 
unto  all  who  enibraced  Abraham's  covenant ;  none 
might  be  excepted.  2^,  All  nations  were  to  be 
taught  this  covenant.  The  fame  which  had  been 
confined  to  one  nation  ;  /.  e.  the  covenant  with  its 
privileges,  is  now  extended  to  all  nations  that  (l)all 
receive  the  faith.  The  commiffion  is,  to  make  all 
nations  difciples,  that  were  willing  to  enter  into 
Chrift's  fchool  j  and  fnch  fliould  be  the  people  of 
God,  as  the  Jevvs  had  been  in  time  pafl.  Where- 
as before  one  nation  only  was  God's  covenant- peo- 
ple, now  Chriil  would  have  other  nations  taken 
in  likewifr  :  before  this  they  were  forbid  going  to 
the  Gentiles  or  Samaritans  5  *but  now  their  coni- 
mifiion  extends  to  all  nations.  3^,  The  firfl  work 
that  minifters  have  to  do,  is  to  difciple,  or  enter 
nations  into  Chrid's  (chool.  When  the  nation  of 
the  Jews  were  made  difciples,  they  were  circum- 
ciled  ;  and  the  firfl  thing  the  apoftles  and  minifters 
of  Chrift  have  in  charge,  is  to  baptize  and  to  teach  : 
Go  ye^  make  difciples,  to  me  out  of  all  nations, 
by  baptizing  and  teaching  ;  and  the  way  of  making 
difciples,  was  entering  into  a  fchool :  In  this  fenfe, 
Jofeph  of  Arimathea  became  one  of  Chrift's  difci- 
ples, not  becaufe  he  was  one  that  had  been  trained 
up  under  his  miniftry  before,  but  that  he  might  be 
taught  by  him. 

The  fecond  propofition  in  this  argument  is,  that 
the  infants  of  vifible  believers,  are  the  difciples  of 
Chrift.  This,  I  apprehend,  every  one  mufl  yield 
to  be  true,  who  impartially  confiders  Peter's  ex- 
prefsly  calling  them  fo.  "  Why  tempt  ye  God, 
"  to  put  a  yoke  upon  the  neck  of  the  difciples, 

D  "  which 


2  6         Infant  Eapupn  "vindicated^ 

"  which  neither  our  fathers  nor  we  were  able  to 
*'  bear*,**  The  confroverfy  referred  to  in  this 
fcripture,  refpeds  the  tiiCLimciting  the  Genule 
profelytes.  "  Certain  of  the  Phai iiees  roie  up, 
and  infifted  that  it  was  necelTaiy  to  circumcife  thtin, 
and  to  command  them  to  keep  the  law  of  Mojes." 
Tho'  they  embraced  the  faith  of  ChriH:,  yet  many 
of  them  continued  very  zealous  for  circumcifion, 
and  urged  it  upon  the  Gentiles  as  necefT^ry  to  ful- 
vation.  This  was  what  raifed  the  diilenfion  and 
difputation  with  them  j  and  this  was  what  Peter 
fliarply  reproved  thofe  judaifing  teachers  for,  as  a 
matter  fo  plain,  that  he  could  not  but  fpeuk  of  it 
with  fome  warmth.  "  Now  therefore  why  tempt 
"  ye  God,  to  put  a  yoke  upon  the  neck  ot  the  dif- 
*'  ciples.*'  But  what  yoke  was  this  ?  why,  it  was 
the  yoke,  of  circumcifion  :  they  would  impofe 
circumcifion  upon  the  believing  Gentiles  and  their 
feed,  as  it  had  been  ufed  among  the  Jews.  The 
ceremonial  law  was  a  heavy  yoke,  which  they 
would  have  laid  upon  the  neck  of  the  Gentiles^ 
which  Chrift  came  to  ^\nt  both  Je  vs  and  Gentiles 
from.  And  Peter ^  in  hisaddreis  to  iheafifembly, 
tells  thofe  Pharifees,  that  they  did,in  cfFedl, prefer ibe 
to  God,  in  attempting  to  Lsy  this  yoke  upon  the 
neck  of  the  difciples.  In  this  addrcfs,  he  evident- 
ly calls  the  infant  feed  of  believing  GentileSy  diki* 
pies  ;  for  the  greatelf  part  cf  any  nation  are  chil* 
dren  ;  and  it  was  not  only  adult  believing'.  Gentiles, 
but  their  male-children  that  they  would  have  im- 
pofed  this  yoke  upon.  Hence,  if  all  the  difciples 
of  Ch rift  are  to  be  baptized,  and  the  children  of 
believing  parents  are  cifciples,  it  necellarily  fol- 
lows,  that  luch  children  are  to  be  baptizeti.     They 

are 

*    Acts  XV,   10. 


Infant  Bapt'ifm  vindicated.  27 

ire  vifible  difciples  ;  they  vifibiy  belong  to  the 
icbool  of  Chrili:,  are  a  part  of  his  family  and  viii- 
ble  kingdom,  and  therefore  may  and  ought  to  be 
baptized. 

Some  indeed,  whofe  f..culty  Is  to  make  plain  truth 
dark,  may  pretend  that  Peter,  by  dilciples,  meant 
onlv  adult  pcrfons.  But  he  that  runs  may  read  the 
apoillc's  meaning:  for  it  was  thofe  very  dilciples 
on  whom  the  judaifing  teachers  would  have  impo- 
fed  the  yoke  of  circumcifion.  And  this  yoke  they 
would  have  impoftd  on  the  brethren,  fpoken  of  in 
the  feries  of  his  difcourfe.  And  it  is  as  evident- 
ly God's  will,  that  the  infants  of  vilible  believers 
fliould  be  baptized,  as  it  is  his  will  that  dilciples 
(hould  be  baptized  j  for  God  honours  them  with  the 
name  of  difciples. 

Arg.  III.  "  Thofe  children  that  are  federal- 
*'  ly  holy,  are  to  be  baptized  :  but  the  infants  of 
*'  vidble  believers  are  federally  holy  : — therefore 
**  the  infants  of  viiible  believers  are  to  be  bap- 
tized/' 

Perhaps  no  feflary,  that  allows  Chrifllan  facra- 
ments,  will  deny,  that  federal  holinefs  gives  a  vi- 
fible right  to  baptifm.  But  if  any  (hould  deny  this, 
I  would  alk  them  what  docs  give  a  vifible  right  ?  If 
it  be  anfwered,  a  profeffion  of  faith  :  I  would  fur- 
ther adc  whether  that  is  not  a  profeffion  of  federal 
holinefs  ? — And  befides,  it  might  be  well  to  confi- 
der,  that  God  lirft  covenanted  with  Abraham,  that 
he  would  be  a  God  to  him  and  his  feed,  and  then 
ordered  the  feal  of  that  difpenlaiion  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  to  be  put  upon  them.     *Tis  for  that 

reafon 


2  8         Infant  Bcipufm  vindicated. 

reafon  God  called  Ifrael  '*  a  holy  people*3"  ^s  had 
chofen  them  for  his  covenant-people,    and  diftin- 
guiflied  them  from  all  other  people  in  the  world. 
Probably  there  were  very  few  of  them  that  v^rere  fa- 
vingly  converted  to  God  at  that  time,  for  they  had 
given  but  very  poor  evidences  of  fuch  a  great  change: 
but  God  had  feparated  them  to  himfelf,   to  be  his 
peculiar  people,    above  all  nations  upon  the  earth. 
He  fet  his  tabernacle  in  the  midfl  of  them. :    they 
had  the  fymbols  of  his  prefence,    his  holy  oracles 
and  holy  ordinances,  and  all  the  privileges  of  a  vi^ 
libie  church.      And  thofe  that  were  thus  federally 
holy,   were  to  be  circumcifed.     Now,  if  baptifm 
comes  inthe  room  of  circumcifion,  then  thofe  that 
are  federally  holy  ought  to  be  b:ipcized  •   But  bap- 
tifm  has  the  fame  refpecl  unto  federal  holinefs  un- 
der the  gofpe!,  that  circumciiion  had  under  the  law. 
Circumcifion  was  a  figa  of  belonging  to  God's  hou- 
ihold,    and  of  having  a  right  to  the  privileges  of 
the  covenant,    and   fo   is  baptifm-f*.       Circumci- 
fion fignified  patting  off  the  fins  of  the  iiefh,  and 
fodoes  baptifmj;.      Paul,  in  his  epiflle  to  the  Co- 
loLtians,  "  fets  baptifm  in  the  fame  ftate,  and  makes 
'*  it  of  the  fame  ufe  to  us,   that  circumciiion  was 
to  the  Jews."     So  that  thofe  who  are  federally  ho- 
ly, ought  to  be  baptized,  as  Vv^ellas  thofe  that  were 
the  covenant-people  of  God,  under  the  ancient  dif- 
penfation,  ought  to  be  circumcifed. 

Well,  "  The  infants  of  viiible  believers  are  fe- 
"  derally  holy."  Tho'  real  qualifications  are  not 
propagated,    yet  relative  privileges  are  ^    for,  *' if 

"  the 


*  Deut,  vii.  6.  chap,  xiv.  2.  and  xxvi.  19.  Jer.  II.  3.  f  Exod, 
X'i.  43,  44.  Acts  il.  41.  X  Col.  ii.  II.  Acts  xxii.  16.  T^C. 
iii.  5. 


Infant  Bapttfm  vindicated.         29 

<'  the  root  be  holy,  fo  are  the  branches*."  Tho* 
grace  doth  not  run  in  the  blood,  yet  external  pri- 
vileges do,  even  to  a  thoufand  generations,  unle{s 
they  are  forfeited.  This  Paul  feems  very  clearly 
to  point  out,  in  the  reafons  of  the  diredion  and 
advice  he  gives  converts  to  Chriftianity,  who  were 
married  to  infidels.  "  The  unbelieving  hufband 
"  is  fandified  by  the  believing  wife,  and  the  un- 
'*  believing  wife  is  fandlified  by  the  believing  huf- 
**  band,  elfe  were  their  children  unclean,  but 
"  now  are  they  holyf-."  All  the  difficulty  that 
I  know  of,  is  to  fix,  or  rightly  to  ftate,  what  fort 
of  holinels  the  apoftle  now  fpeaks  of:  and  there 
appears  to  me  very  little,  if  any,  difficulty,  in  do- 
ing this. 

Surely,  the  apoftle,  by  holinefs,  cannot  mean  a 
principle  of  grace  in  the  hufband  ;  for  it  is  a  ho- 
linefs that  is  conveyed  from  the  parents.  Tho' 
parents  be  ever  fo  holy,  they  cannot  propagate  real 
holinefs  to  their  feed.  The  graces  of  the  Spirit 
cannot  be  conveyed  from  one  to  another  by  natu- 
ral generation.  "  Not  of  the  will  of  the  flelli, 
**  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God  }; ."  We 
do  not  become  the  real  children  of  God,  by  be- 
ing born  of  godly  parents.  'Tis  the  Spirit  of  God 
that  is  the  great  and  fole  efficient  of  regeneration. 
But  the  holinefs  referred  to,  is  that  which  comes 
upon  the  child  through  the  faith  of  the  parent, 
whether  he  be  really,  or  only  vifibly  a  bt;liever. 
Befides,  it  is  a  holinefs  that  may  be  loft :  "  bc- 
*'  caufe  of  unbelief  they  may  be  broken  off:" 
they  cut  themlclves  off  by  unbelief:  and  when 
parents  are  broken  off,    or  call:  out  of  the  vifiblc 

church, 
*Rom.xi.  16.     Hsrj-y  in  Ice.       f  i  Cor.  vii.  j.j.       jjohni.  ij. 


2Q        hifant  Baptifm  vindicated, 

cliarch,  God  cuts  off  their  children  from  the  ho- 
Hnefs  fpoken  of.  Now,  this  cannot  be  faid  of  a 
ilate  of  faving  grace  ;  for  thofe  that  have  a  prin- 
ciple of  grace  in  their  hearts,  (hall  abide  for  ever. 

Nor  can  the  apoftfe  mean  a  matrimonial  holt-' 
nefs.  For,  a  iavsrful  birth  has  no  dependence  up- 
on the  faith  of  parents.  Marria^:,es  were  as  law- 
ful among  the  heathen  as  among  others:  and  where 
a  marriage  is  lawful,  the  children  are  legitimate, 
even  tho'  the  parents  are  heathen.  And,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  child  may  be  a  baflard,  and  is  fo, 
if  not  begotten  in  lawful  marriage,  tho'  it  O.:)ould 
be  fuppokd  that  both  the  parents  are  believers. 
The  realiy  and  lawfulnefs  of  thefe  relations,  is 
jiot  founded  in  grace,  nor  in  a  profeffion  of  faith. 
A  father  is  as  truly  a  fdther,  a  hufband  as  lawful- 
ly a  hulband,  tho'  he  has  no  grace,  as  the  moft 
holy  m;in  in  the  world.  Grace  adds  nothing  to 
the  truth,  or  l.wfulnefs  of  any  relation  whatfoe- 
ver,  tho'  it  adds  much  to  the  c.omfort  and  right 
life  of  all  relations  of  life.  Thjks,  notwithfland- 
ing,  if  both  the  parents  are  in  a  (late  of  heathen* 
ifm,  the  children  are  unclean  :  but  if  one  of  the 
parents  is  a  believer,  the  children  are  holy. 

Well,  if  this  hclinefs  is  neither  a  principle  of 
grace  in  the  heiiir,  nor  a  manimonial  holinefs, 
what  can  it  be  but  a  federal  hotfnefs  ?  BJng  in- 
fidels, they  were  out  of  the  pale  of  the  vifible 
church,  and  their  infant  leed  were  common  and 
unclean,  in  the  fame  fenfe  that  heal  hens  in  gene- 
ral were  filled  unclean  :  but  bein<>-  believers,  and 
in  the  vifible  church,  or  either  of  them  fo,  they 
arc  diflingui&ed  from  the  world  j    and  therefore 

their 


Infant    Saptifm  timdlcated.        Ji 

tlieir  children  arc  within  the  holy  inclofure.  They 
are  feparated  from  the  reft  of  the  world  ;  taken 
into  God's  holy  covenant  j  they  are  God's  peculiar 
people.  "Tis  a  holinefs  that  comes  to  children, 
thro*  the  faith  of  the  parent,  which  can  be  no  o- 
ther  than  a  federal  holinefs,  or  being  taken  into 
the  parents  covenantj  which  is  derived  to  them, 
either  from  Either  or  mother.  And  henc€,  they 
have  not  only  a  hereditary,  but  an  adual  right  to 
the  ordinances  of  God  ;  unto  them  do  pertain  the 
adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenant  ok  grace. 

By  thefe  arguments,  I  apprehend,  there  is  good 
evidence  laid  before  you,  to  relieve  your  mindSj  if 
you  have  had  any  fcruples,  of  the  right  which  the 
infants  of  vllible  believers  have  to  baptifm.  Yet, 
left  any  fiiould  hefitate,  or  think  it  an  immaterial 
point,  I  hope  you  will  give  a  candid  attention  to 
what  may  be  further  offered,  by  way  of  evideiicca 
together  with  the  applications  in  the  afternoofi.. 


-D  I  S. 


I  S  C   O  U  R  S  E     IL 

ACTS    XVL    3^. 

•AnitiJa^  baptized^  he^  and  all  his,  Jlratghtwap 


J^x:<#xx^  ERE  the  doarine  of  infant  baptifm 

WX      ^  circumftantbl  a  matter,   as  Ibme 
^     have  reprefented  it,   I  ihould  think 
X  y..     the  labour  and  time  ill  be  ft  owed  to 

J^.x>..-^.xx:^  'infift  upon  this  fubjed:  j  for  nothing 
is  more  deftrmaive  to  true  Chriftianity,  than  pla- 
cing it  in  modes,  and  firing  our  2eal  about  circum- 
■ftantials.  But  I  look  upon  this  dod:rine  of  great 
importance  j  and  making  light  of  it  a  great  re- 
iledion  upon  tlie  God  of  the  covenantj  and  the 
great  privileges  contained  therein.  You  need  not 
wonder,  therefore^  that  I  fliiould  take  fome  pains 
to  vindicate  it  in  this  evil  day ;  and  if  God  fhould 
break  in  Vv^ith  his  light,  for  your  convid:ion  and 
eftabliiliment  in  the  prefent  truth  which  has  beeii 
maintained  in  thefe  churches,  you  will  not  repent 
your  diligent  attention  to  fome  further  evidences. 
Therefore,  with  an  humble  dependence  upon  di- 
vine-aid, let  us  add, 

Arg.  IV.     "  That  dodrine  which  infers  all 
"  inflmts  to  be  in  the  vifible  kingdom  of  fatan, 

E  **    i=? 


54        Infant   Baptifin  vindicated, 

«*  is  certainly  fulfe  doflrine: — but  the  dodlnnd 
**  that  denies  all  infants  to  be  members  of  the  vi- 
**  fible  church,  infers  them  to  be  members  of  the 
"  vi fible  kingdom  of  fatan  : — therefore  it  is  falfe 
y  dodrine." 

The  vifible  kingdom  of  Chrifl,  and  the  vKible 
kingdom  of  fatan,  divide  the  world;  i,  e.  thofe 
that  do  not  belong  to  the  vifible  kingdom  of  Chrift, 
do  belong  to  the  vifible  kingdom  of  fatan  j  for 
there  is  no  medium  ;  nor  can  thofe  that  belong  to 
the  one,  belong  alfo  to  the  other.  If  a  child  is  ill 
the  vifible  kingdom  of  fatan,  there  cannot  be  any 
vifible  ground  of  hope  of  the  falvation  of  that 
child.  The  only  ground  of  hope  that  we  can  have 
of  the  falvation  of  children,  dying  in  their  infan- 
cy, is  their  being  in  the  kingdom  of  Chri^^,  or  be- 
ing the  members  of  Chrift.  And  the  only  ground 
of  hope  that  we  can  have  of  their  being  the  mem- 
bers of  Chrift,  by  a  real  and  v  tal  union  with  him, 
arifes  from  their  vifible  memberfhip  ;  for  it  is  im- 
poflTible  that  we  can  judge  of  that  which  is  invifi- 
ble,    any  other  way  than  by  that  which  is  vifible. 

Now,  It  is  palpably  falfe  dofbrine,  to  reprefent 
all  infants,  dying  in  their  infancy,  as  dying  in  the 
vifible  kinedom  of  fatan  ;  for  fuch  dodrine  would 
tcike  away  all  hope  of  their  being  faved.  Where- 
as the  word  of  God  gives  us  good  reafon  to  hope 
for  the  falvation  of  fome  infants,  dyirg  in  their 
infancy.  Therefore,  the  word  of  God  gives  us 
good  reafon  to  fay,  that  the  dodlrine  which  teach- 
es us  that  all  infants,  dying  in  their  infancy,  die 
in  the  vifible  kingdom  of  fatan,  is  palpably  falfe 
do(5lrine. 

This 


Infant  Eaptijm  vindicated.  35 

This  argument,  is  fet  before  us  by  our  Saviour 
himklf,  in  the  welcome  he  gave  fome  little  chil- 
dren that  were  brought  to  him.  Some  of  his  dif- 
ciples,  probably  thought  ic  below  their  Mafter,  to 
take  notice  of  little  children,  brought  in  their  pa- 
rents or  nurfes  arms,  and  therefore  reproved  them 
for  being  fo  troublefome.  But  Chrift  rectified  the 
mirtake  they  went  up(;n,  and  faid,  "  SuiFer  little 
"  children,  and  forbid  them  not  to  come  unto  me  : 
**  for  of  fuch  is  the  kingrdom  of  heaven*."  Hence 
It  IS  evident,  at  leaft,  that  fome  little  children  be- 
long to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  therefore,  not 
to  the  kingdom  of  fatan.  They  are  members  of 
the  vifible  church,  and  therefore,  to  them  pertains 
the  privileges  of  church  memberniip.  Confequent- 
ly,  thofe  that  deny  them  the  privilege  of  kiptifm, 
do  teach  falfe  doctrine,  virtually  laying,  that  they 
arc  all  in  the  vifible  kingdom  of  fatan,  and  that 
there  is  no  vifible  ground  of  hope  of  their  falvati- 
on,  tho*  our  Saviour  fays  the  contrary.  Yea,  he 
takes  it  very  ill,  of  thofe  who  forbid  them,  and 
fliut  them  out  of  church  privileges. 

Arc  V.  "  That  do(5lrine  which  renders  the 
*'  privileges  of  the  Chriflian  church  lefs,  than  the 
**  privileges  of  the  Jewi{h  church,  is  certainly  falfe 
"  doflrine  : — but  the  do<Srine  which  excludes  the 
**  infants  of  vifible  believers  from  the  initiating 
"  feal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  viz.  baptifm, 
"  makes  the  privileges  of  the  Chriftian  church 
**  lefs  than  the  privileges  of  the  Jewilh  church  : 
*'  —therefore  it  is  falfe  dodtrine.'* 

That 

—  

^  Mattt  xi^.  14. 


36       Infant  Baptifn  vindicated. 

That  the  infants  of  vifible  believers  in  the  Jew^: 
\(h  church,  had  a  right,  and  aftually  enjoyed  the 
feal  of  indudion  into  the  church,  needs  nothing 
further  at  prefent,  than  what  has  been  offered,  to 
prove  it. — And  it  is  alfo  evident,  if  this  was  a  pri- 
vilege in  that  church,  the  privileges  of  the  Chrlf^ 
tian  church  would,  in  that  refpe^S,  be  lefs  than  the 
privileges  of  the  Jewiih  church,  provided  the  ini- 
tiating feal  of  the  covenant  is  denied  the  children 
of  believing  parents  under  the  gofpel.  But  what  is 
more  abfurd  than  to  fuppofe  this?  Paul,  when  he 
(pompares  the  Old  and  Nev/  Teftament  difpenfation 
together,  (hews  the  fuperior  excellency  of  the  lat-» 
ter  to  the  former.  "  Even  that  which  was  made 
*'  glorious,  had  no  glory  in  this  refped,  by  reafon 
^*  of  the  glory  that  excelleth*."  He  undertook,^ 
of  fet  purpofe,  to  ihow  that  the  privileges  of  the 
gofpel  difpenfation,  were  far  greater  than  the  privi- 
leges of  the  legal  difpenfation  of  the  fame  covenant 
of  grace.  But  if  the  children  of  vifible  believers,^ 
are  denied  thofe  external  privileges  of  the  covenant,, 
which  the  children  of  the  Jews  enjoyed,  then  our 
privileges  are  lefs  than  theirs  were,  and  confequent- 
ly  theChriftian  difpenfation  is  not  fo  excellent  as  the 
legal  difpenfation.  Whereas  the  apoftle  not  only 
confiders  the  fuperior  excellency  of  the  prefent  to 
the  former  difpenfation,  on  many  accounts,  in  the 
epiftle  and  chapter  jufl  referred  toj  but  elfewhere 
he  affures  us,  that  our  privileges  are,  at  leaft,  e- 
qual  to  theirs  in  the  very  cafe  under  confideration. 
This  he  puts  beyond  all  reafonable  doubt,  by  af- 
ferting  that  the  Gentile  church  is  grafted  in  among 
them  that  were  not  broken  off,  and  with  them  par- 
take of  the  root  and  fatnefs  of  the  olive-tree :  and 

T  I      .1     I  " 

*  2  Cor.  iii,  10. 


Infant  Bapt'ifm  vindicated,  jj 

fo,  **  the  bleffing  of  Abraham  comes  upon  the 
**  Gentiles ;"  the  gofpehfed  Gentiles  are  received 
into  the  lame  covenant  relation  with  God,  and  par- 
take of  all  the  covenant  privileges,  from  which  the 
unbelieving  Jews  were  cut  ofF.  Now,  in  as  much 
as  the  Jews  had  tlie  privilege  of  fealing  the  cove- 
nant t(x  their  children,  who  can  deny  the  leal  of 
the  covenant  to  the  children  of  vilible  believers  un- 
der the  gofpel  ?  If  this  was  a  privilege  to  them, 
is  it  not  as  great  a  privilege  unto  us  and  our  chil- 
dren ?  Do  not  thofe  that  deny  the  chihiren  of 
Chriftian  parents  the  feal  of  the  covenant,  deny 
them  a  great  privilege,  which  the  children  of  vili- 
ble believers  enjoyed  under  the  law  ? — If  {o,  thea 
furely,  this  denial  is  a  teaching  falfe  doctrine ;  for^ 
the  privileges  of  the  Chriftian  church,  and  iht 
grace  and  comforts  of  it,  are,  at  kaft,  equal  in 
thefe  refpeds ;  yea,  in  the  whole,  they  are  greater 
than  thofe  that  the  Jewidi  church  enjoyed« 

Arc  VI.  **  If  it  was  the  approved  pradic© 
•'  of  the  church  in  the  apoftles  days,  and  fo  down- 
*'  ward,  to  introduce  the  children  of  vilible  belie- 
*'  vers  into  the  Chriftian  church,  by  the  feal  of 
*'  baptifm  5  then  the  infants  of  fuch  parents  ought 
*'  to  be  baptized  : — but  it  was  the  approved  prac- 
*'  tice  in  the  time  of  the  apoftles,  and  fo  down- 
**  ward,  thro*  all  periods  of  the  church  : — there- 
^*  fore  the  children  of  fuch  parents  ought  to  be 
y  baptized.** 

When  Chrift  and  his  apoftles  preached  the  gol^ 
pel,  they  extended  the  promife  or  covenant,  not 
only  as  to  the  matter  of  it,  but  as  to  the  manner 
^nd  form  of  adminiftration,  to  vifible  Chriftians 

and 


5?  Infant  Baptifm  vindicated^ 

and  their  feed.  No  fooner  was  Zaccheus  appro* 
ved  and  declared  a  Cbriftian  himfelf,but  his  family 
alfo  became  related  to  Cbrift,  by  virtue  of  his  in* 
tereft  in  the  covenant.  *'  This  day  is  falvatioa 
*^  come  to  this  houfe,  for  as  much  as  he  alfo  is 
•*  the  fon  of  Abraham*."  Before  this,  tho*  a 
fon  of  Abraham  by  birth,  he  was  an  excommuni- 
cate, and  the  Jews  were  (hy  of  converllng  with 
him,  but  being  a  vidble  penitent,  his  family  were 
brought  into  the  church,  and  entided  to  privilep^es, 
by  virtue  of  his  intereft  in  the  covenant  which  God 
made  with  Abraham.  Chrid  applied  the  promifc 
to  his  houfe  5  /.  e,  to  his  children,  whether  young 
or  old  ;  to  all  his  proper  houfliold.  Upon  his 
profeffion  of  faith  and  repentance,  his  family  be- 
came the  vifible  heirs  of  falvation,  and  of  all  the 
means  leading  unto  it.  Here  Chrift  opens  the 
covenant  made  wi  Ji  Abraham,  not  only  for  him- 
felfj  but  for  his  ho  (e  ;  and  argues  from  Zaccheus* 
toeing  a  fon  of  Abraham,  that  the  covenant  was  not 
only  to  him,  but  to  his  houfe  /.  e,  his  feed.  For  to 
what  end  fhould  hh  houfe  be  mentioned,  if  the 
whole  falvation  fpoken  of  was  confined  to  himfelf  ? 
Would  St  not  be  very  abfurd  for  Chrift,  to  fpeak 
of  men  and  their  hou  (holds,  and  of  falvation  co- 
ming to  them  and  their  houfes  5  and  yet,  to  fuppofe 
that  he  dcfigned  to  fliut  out  the  children  of  fuch  fa- 
milies from  the  outward  fign  of  the  promife?  What 
%  flrange  policy  arc  they  pofleffed  of,  who  can 
force  themfelves  to  think,  that  Chrift  did  not  here- 
by intend,  that  the  feed  of  vifible  believers  (hould 
be  included  in  the  covenant,    though  they  were 

included  in  the  darker  difpenfation  of  it  ? So, 

when  Peter  came  to  Cornelius,  he  preached  the 

coYe- 

f  Luke  sis.  9.. 


Infant  Baptifm  vindicated^  jp 

covenant  to  him,  with  a  gracious  entail  to  hia 
houfe  *  :  he  and  his  children  (hould  be  taken  in- 
to covenant,  and  have  the  means  of  falvation.  q.d* 
Hitherto  fiilvation  has  been  of  the,  Jews,  but  now 
it  is  to  the  Gentiles,  as  much  as  ever  it  was  to  the 
Jews ;  the  promifes,  privileges,  and  means  of  it, 
are  conveyed  to  all  nations,  as  amply  and  fully,  to 
all  intents  and  purpofes,  as  ever  it  had  been  ap- 
propriated to  the  Jewifh  nation, — So^  when  the 
apoftle  preached  to  the  jailor,  and  exhorted  him 
to  admit  the  record  that  God  has  given  of  his  Son, 
he  affures  him  that  "  he  fliould  be  iaved  and  his 
**  houfe-j-."  believe,  and  falvation  (hall  come  to 
thy  houfe  :  juil  as  God  preached  the  covenant  to 
Abraham  ;  "  walk  before  me,  and  be  thou  per- 
**  fedl :  and  I  will  eftablilh  my  covenant  between 
"  me  and  thee,  and  thy  feed  after  thee  ;  to  be  a 
**  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  feed  after  thee  J  :" 
/»  e.  to  thy  houfhold.  But  did  the  apoftle  mean 
that  the  jailor's  faich  fhould  eternally  lave  his  hou- 
fhold  ?  Anf.  He  meant  the  fame  that  is  meant  in  the 
promife  given  to  Abraham  and  his  feed  :  k>  that  the 
quedion  would  be  as  proper  for  any  one  to  aHc, 
whether  the  promife  of  being  a  God  to  the  feed  of 
Abraham,  was  a  promife  of  eternal  life  ?  The  ut- 
raofl  intended  by  thelepromifes  is,  that  they  (hould 
enjoy  the  blcllings  of  church  J3riviieges,  and  the 
external  means  of  falvation  ;  and  on  thefe  accounts 
bediftinguilhed  from  all  others.  And  herein  thefe 
promi(es  agree  with  what  Peter  fays  to  thofe  who 
enquired  what  they  fliould  do  :  his  anfwcr  is,  *'  re- 
**  pent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the 
**  name  of  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift.  For  the  promife 
**  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children**."    When 

they 

*  A(its  xi.  14.     Henry  in  loc.       \  A^s  xvi.  ji       %  Gea,  xvii, 
1.  7.  **  Afts  ii.  38.  39. 


j^O        Inpant  Baptifm  vindicated. 

they  were  brought  into  a  new  difpenfation  of  the 
covenant  of  grace  by  baptifm^their  children  were  not 
to  be  t'hrown  out,  but  taken  in  with  them  j  for  the 
promife,  **  I  will'be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thjf 
•*  feed/*  belonged  as  much  to  them  and  their  chiU 
dr-en,  as  ever  it  did  to  Abraham  and  his  feed.  A* 
greeable  to  this  fenfe  of  the  promife,  we  find  they 
baptized  houfliolds,or  families,  which  may  be  con* 
fidered  ptefently. 

And  this  muft  be  underftood  of  the  infant  feed 
cf  vifible  believers :  for,  according  to  the  moii  au- 
thentick  church  hiftory,  infant  baptifm  was  prac- 
tifed  in  the  days  of  the  apoftles,  and  in  the  places 
and  churches  to  whom  Paul  wrote  his  epiftles*  The 
Chriftian  church  was  inpoffeffionof  this  priv-ilcge, 
for  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years  from  its  begins 
ning,  as  we  might  make  abundantly  evident,  wtre 
it  neceifary,  both  from  the  Greek  and  Latin  faiiiers* 
But  if  it  fhould  appear  to  be  the  pradice  of  die 
church  in  the  three  iirlt  centuries,  that  will  fuffice 
the  prefent  purpofe.  To  this  end,  1  refer  you  to 
the  w^ords  of  Origen^  xvho  fays,  **  children  are  bap* 
*'  tized  for  the  remiffion  of  fins,  &c.^'*  And  a^ 
gain,  he  fays,  infants  of  children  were  baptized*!*-. 
To  the  fame  purpofe  I  might  add  the  teitimony  of 
Irenaiis  and  Cyprian ,  who  lived  about  the  fame 
time  J.  But  I  choofe  to  wave  private  teftimonieSj 
in  as  much  as  I  have  the  determination  of  a  fynod 
upon  this  head,  not  two  hundred  years  after  the  a- 
poftles,  wherein  v/asmore  than  threefcore  bifhops* 

The 


"*  Parvuli  baptizantur  in  remifionem  peccaiorurtt.  And  this 
€frigen  lived  about  a  hundred  years  after  the  apoftle  Paul. 

f  Paidia  and  n^-pia.  %  Irenaus  was  bifhop  of  Lj^'ontt 

A.  D.    184.   ^Cyprian  blfliop  of  Carthagf^  A.  D.  25-3. 


Infant  Baptlfm  vindicated,  /s^i 

The  occafion  of  the  fynod  was  not  becaufe  infant 
baptifm  had  not  been  an  ufage  of  the  church,  but 
becaufe  it  had  been  from  the  beginning  :  but  one  of 
the  bifliops  had  fome  fcruples  about  the  time  of 
their  baptifm,  whether  it  might  be  about  the  third 
or  fourth  day,  or  whether  it  iliould  be  delayed  till 
the  eighth,  as  it  was  obferved  with  refped:  to  cir* 
cumcifion.  The  fynodical  decree  was  to  this  ef- 
fect** :  "  As  for  the  matter  of  infants,  whom 
"  you  faid  were  not  to  be  baptized  within  the  fe- 
*'  coiid  or  third  day  after  their  birth,  or  according 
"  to  the  hwof  circumciiion  within  the  eighth  day 
'•^  thereof,  ^c.  our  opinion  is^  that  none  ought  to 
"  be  prohibited,  efpecially  no  infants,  tho'  but  juil 
"  born,  Gfr."  And  this  agrees  with  what  other 
particular  renowned  writers  have  faid,  that  the 
church  had  all  along  the  pofleffion  of  the  privilege 
of  baptizing  infants :  and  alio  with  what  the  pious 
and  judicious  Calvin,  who  was  well  verfed  in  an- 
tiquity, hath  fiid,  viz.  "  I  affirm  that  this  holy 
**  oidinance  of  infant  baptifm,  hath  been  perpe- 
"  tually  obferved  in  the  Chriftian  church  ;  for  there 
"  is  no  ancient  doftor,  that  doth  not  acknowledge 
"  that  infant  baptifm  was  conftantly  adminiftercd 
"  by  thsapoftles."  And  if,  incontroverted  cafes, 
the  conftant  pradtice  of  the  church  is  the  beft  in- 
terpreter of  thejaw  of  Chriil,  the  difpute  muft  be 
at  an  end  j  for  it  always  has  been  the  pradice  of 
the  church,  to  initiate  the  infants  of  believers  by 
baptifm,  even  from  the  firft  conflituting  a  church 
at  Rome  by  the  apofHe  Paul,  according  to  moft  cre- 
dible account  j  and  it  has  never  failed  to  this  dav, 

F  tho' 


** 


^lantum  vsro  ad  caufam  Infantiuvi  pcrtinci,  qtcos  dixijii 
intra  fecundam  vel  t^rtium  dkn  quo  nali Jlnt  conjtitn'os  b.-r/'ti- 
zari  nsn  operiers,  &c. 


^t         Infant  Bapilfm  'vindicated. 

tho*  a  number  rofe  up  fiercely  againft  it,  in  Germa* 
hy,  after  the  church  had  polTcflcd  it  more  then  fif-» 
teen  hundred  years  in  a  good  inealure  of  quietnefs. 

Thefe  argument?,  ttiy  brethren,  tho'  very  im* 
perfedly  handled,  are  fuch  as  I  amiable  to  an-* 
fwer,  and  I  hope  will  prove  fluisfying  to  every  ho- 
neft  enquirer  after  the  truth,  in  the  prelent  debate 
amopg  you.  Yet,  left  any  rtiould  ftill  doubc,  I 
wiU  briefly  anfwer  one  or  two  thread- bare  objcdti-* 
ons  urged  againft  our  Chriftian  pra(5lice,* 

OhjeB.  I.  "  Our  adverfaries  plead,  as  they  fay, 
*'  for  believers  bapiifm  ;  and  they  argue  to  this  ef- 
*'  fed,  viz,  infants  are  not  capable  of  faith :  but 
*'  there  is  no  warrant  to  baptize  any,  but  thofe 
"  that  profefs  their  faith  in  Chrift  ^  and  therefore 
"  no  infants  may  be  baptized.'* 

j^nf.  I.  "  This  obje(f>ion  is  of  as  mnch  weight 
*'  againft  circumcinnor  children,  under  the  legal,  as 
**  againft  baptizing  them  under  the  Chiiftian  dif- 
"  penfation  of  the  covenant  of  Grace."  Is  the  vi- 
fibility  of  faith  necelTarv  for  the  b.piifm  of  adult 
perfons  ?  fo  was  the  viiibllity  of  faith  necefTary  tCr 
the  circumcifion  of  the  adult  under  the  l.w;  *•  a 
*'  feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  fiitk*,"  which  they 
had,  *'  yet  being  uncircumcifed."  But  what  doth 
this  argue  more  than  that  thofe  who  are  yrown  to 
years  of  difcretion,  and  have  not  had  the  feal  of 
the  covenant  put  upon  them,  muft  make  a  profef- 
fion  of  their  faith  before  they  are  b.ptiz^d?  But 
if  the  infants  of  vinble  belicvtrs  were  capable  of  re- 
ceivino;  the  feal  of  the  covenant,  under  the  former 

dif- 

^  jcCoiXi.  iv.  II.     Henry  in  loc. 


Infant   Bapfifm  vindicated.        ^-^ 

dlfpenfatlon,  how  they  can  be  caft  out  or  denied  the 
fe..l  under  the  prefent  difpenfation,  without  war- 
rant, I  confels,  is  quite  beyond  my  difcernment. 
Jf  they  were  taken  into  covenant  of  old,  and  had 
the  feal  of  the  covenant  put  upon  them,  and  the 
fame  covenant  is  continued,  with  all  its  privileges, 
by  what  fevere  fentence  they  are  rejected  and  in- 
capacitated, thofe^J^appy  people  are  concerned  to 
make  out,  who  not  only  rtjed,  but  nullify  and  re- 
proach the  baptilm  of  the  feed  of  believers. 

uinf.  II.  ''  We  preach  the  fame  covenant,  and 
"  pradife  as  the  apofties  in  this  regard  have  done." 
Adult  perfons,  in  order  to  admillion  in  the  church 
by  the  feal  of  the  covenant,  have  been  vifible  be- 
lievers under  both  difpenfitions.  And  when  we 
preach  publickly,  or  in  privateconverfation,  tothofe 
that  belong  not  to  the  church,  but  live  in  a  flate  of 
Gentilifm,  we  preach  the  fame  doctrine  that  the  a- 
poiiles  preached  upon  this  head.  So  we  (liould 
preach,  were  we  fcnt  to  the  fcattered  tribes  of  If- 
rael  in  America,  now  the  poor  favages  of  the  wilder- 
ness :  were  we  the  happy  inftruments  fent  among 
the  poor  Indians,  to  turn  them  from  their  f  dfe  di- 
vinations, and  fuperfliiious  ufages,  to  follow  a  di- 
vine revelation  of  unqueftionable  verity,  we  fliould 
infift  upon  the  fame  dodrine  ih^u  the  apoitlJs  infill- 
ed upon ;  and  when  any  of  them  believed  in  the 
Saviour,  and  repented  of  their  liris  and  were  bapti- 
xed,  and  fo  became  members  of  the  vifible  church, 
we  rtiould  treat  them  juft  as  the  apoftles  did.  We 
fhould  tell  them  that  the  fame  d^y  falvation  came  to 
their  houfes  j  that  a  church  memberfhip  was  con- 
veyed to  their  children,  and  they  were  included  in 
the  privilci^es  of  the  covenant  with  themlelves.     I 

am 


ij.^        Infant  Baptifm   viitd'tcated, 

am  fenfible  our  adverfaries  deny  this ;  and  let  them 
fhew  me  a  warrant  for  their  excluding  the  infants 
of  fuch,  and  I  will  join  them  :  but  fince  Chrift  and 
his  apofllcs  have  refolved  this  matter  in  favour  of 
our  principles  and  pradice,  they  muft  allow  us  to 
adhere  to  their  testimony,  as  worthy  of  credit. 
If  parents,  making  a  profeffion  of  faith,  do  not, 
in  that  way,  bring  in  their  children  wrth  them, 
then  furely  our  blcfled  Saviour  miffed  it,  when  he 
told  Zaccheus,  that  that  day  falvation  was  come 
to  his  houfe;  for  as  much  as  he,  a  poor  publican , 
was  now  interefted  in  that  covenant  which  God 
made  with  Abraham.  If  parents,  thus  believing, 
do  not  bring  in  their  children,  then  Peter  miffed 
it,  in  faying  to  believing  penitents,  "  the  promife 
**  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children."  Yea,  if 
this  is  not  the  cafe,  Paul  miffed  it,  when  he  faid 
to  the  Galatians,  that  "  the  bleffing  of  Abraham 
**  came  upon  the  Gentiles."  If  what  the  Ana- 
bapiifts  lay  is  true,  ihefe,  and  many  other  texts  of 
fcripture  muft  be  rafed  out  of  the  bible;  for  it  will 
not  do  to  receive  them  as  infallible  truth;  becaufe, 
upon  their  principles,  they  are  evidently  falfe.  But 
if,  on  the  other  hand,  what  Chrifl  and  his  apof}:les 
have  faid  about  the  matter  be  true,  the  unavoid- 
able conlequence  of  it  will  be,  that  the  infants  of 
yifible  believers  are  to  be  baptized, 

Yetfl-ill,  tho'  this  might  ferve  for  an  anfwer,  they 
go  on  and  objedl,  2dly,  that  "  There  is  noexprefs. 
**  command  or  example  for  baptizing  infants," 

Anf,  I.     ^*  What  if  we  fliould  rejeft  fome  o- 
**  ther  duties,  with  a  confident  affertion  that  there 
is  no  exprefs  command  for  them  ?"     Can  they 

(liow 


«c 


Infant  Baptifni  vindicated,         ^5 

fhow  us  any  cxprels  command  or  example  for  wo- 
men to  receive  the  Lord's  fupper  ?  and  if  they  can- 
not, why  do  they  admit  them  ?  We  grant,  that 
by  fcripture  confequence,  they  ought  to  be  admit- 
ted to  the  Lord's  table :  but  where  will  they  find 
an  exprefs  command  for  it?  If  we  were  difpofed  to 
wrangle,  we  might  eafily  fay,  where  is  the  exprefs 
command  or  example  to  bear  them  out  in  admit- 
ting women  to  the  Lord's  table  ?  And  again, 
where  is  the  exprefs  command  or  example  for  tha 
religions  obfervance  of  the  Lord's  day,  inflead  of 
the  old  feventh  day  fabbath  ?  Or,  where  is  the 
command  or  example  in  the  New  Tellament,  for 
holding  publick  lectures  on  week  days?  Let  thefe 
queftions  be  fully  refolved,  and  I  hope  that  I  have 
offered  you  as  much  light  for  infant  baptifni,  as  they^ 
can  bring  for  their  pradtice  in  thefe  points.       But 

Anf.  n.  "  We  have  an  exprefs  command,  which 
"  has  never  been  reverfed,  to  adminifter  the  initi- 
*'  ating  feal  of  the  covenant,  to  the  children  of  vi- 
**  lible  believers."  We  don't  lay  that  the  com- 
mand is  in  thel4i  words,  "  Go  and  baptize  the  chil- 
"  dren  of  all  my  covenant-people  j"  or  that  "  the 
**  apoftles  did  certainly  baptize  the  infants  of  bs- 
"  lieving  parents."  But  no  man  that  enjoys  the 
bleliing  of  a  found  mind,  and  is  not  blinded  by  er- 
ror and  prejudice,  can  fay  that  we  have  no  good 
warrant  lor  baptizing  the  infant  feed  of  viiible  be- 
lievers. For,  we  have  a  command  to  adminifter 
the  feal  of  the  covenant  to  the  infants  of  believers : 
and  this  command  has  never  been  reverfed  ;  and 
therefore  it  is  flill  in  force,  and  not  only  warrants, 
but  obliges  us  to  adminifter  the  initiating  feal  of 
the  covenant  to  dich  infants,    which,    under  the 

prcfcnt 


i|6         Infant  Baptlfm  vindicated. 

prefent  difpenlluion,  is  baptifm.  And  were  there 
ever  fo  many  difpenfations  of  the  fame  covenant  of 
grace,  and  a  new  feal  of  introdudion  to  each  new 
difpenfation,  the  fubjeds  muft  remain  the  fame, 
unleisGod  had  excluded  them.  Nor  have  we  the 
leaft  reafon  to  imagine,  but  that  the  apoilles  ob- 
ferved  the  command,  in  adminiliering  the  feal  of 
the  covenant,  to  the  children  of  believing  parents, 
Vi^ith  conftant  exadnefs.  For  akho'  it  is  not  laid 
in  thefe  very  words,  "  they  baptized  the  infant 
"  feed  of  believing  parents,"  yet  we  are  ailured 
of  it  by  words  that  are  equivalent :  for  we  are  told 
that  they  baptized  hou'holds  or  families;  Lydia 
and  her  houfhoid,  Stephanus  and  his  houihold,  the 
jailor  and  his  houHiold,  &c.  And  thefe  accounts, 
to  an  impartial  mind,  I  think,  muft  be  equivalent 
to  the  plciineft  aifertions :  for  in  the  fciiptures,  the 
terms  bouje  and  hofftold^  are  conflantly  ufcd  to  fig- 
nify  the  children  of  the  houfe*.  Now,  to  what 
poflible  end  fl.::ould  the  apoOles,  wheii  fpeaking  of 
bapiifm,  borrow  a  phrafe  ufed  in  all  languages, 
particularly  in  the  Old  Teflament,  to  fgnify  the 
children  of  a  houfe,  unlefs  it  were  to  fignify  that 
there  were  children  in  that  houfe  ?  Doubtlefs,  if 
a  miffionary  to  the  Indians  fliould  write  us,  that 
he  had  baptized  luch  ah  Indian  and  his  houfe  ;  and 
another  fliouJd  write  us,  that  he  had  baptized  the 
head  of  fuch  a  family,  and  all  his,  we  lliould  ve- 
ry readily  underffand  them.  Yea,  I  cannot  think 
that  even  an  Anabaptiff  could  eafjlv  mifiake  fuch 
accounts,  after  all  the  prejudices  they  have  imbibed 
againft  our  dodtrine  and  pradice.  And  if  he  fhould 

fay, 

*  Gen,  ixx.   50.     chap.  xlv.   18,  19.     Numb.  Hi,   15.     PiVtl. 
€xv.  12,  13.     Beiidcs  many  other  texts  which  teach  us  the  fame 

iBTUth, 


Infant  Bcipfifm  vindicated,         ^J 

fay,  that  it  is  prtflible  thefe  families  had  no  infants 
in  them  ;  we  may  cluim  a  right  to  fay  it  is  poffible, 
yea,  highly  probable  they  hadj  not  only  becaufe 
ho  ifliolvls  ufually  contain,  and  families  are  made 
up  in  part  of  children  ;  but  alfo  becaufe  children 
were  included  in  the  covenant  wiih  their  parents, 
and  have  never  been  cut  off. 


APPLICATION. 

Ufe  T.  Learn  hence,  "  fomething  of  the  evil 
**  and  danger  of  Anabaptift  principles  and  their 
"  pradice  agreeable  thereto."  I  do  not  defire  to 
reprefent  them  in  a  falfe  light  5  and  hope  to  be  kept 
from  a  cenforious  fpirit  in  all  that  1  fay  of  them. 
I  am  fenfible  they  generally  difavov/  the  name  of 
Anab.iptids,  though  we  conftantly,  and  with  good 
reafon,  fay  it  belon_,s  to  them.  For  they  not  on- 
ly deny  the  right  of  infant  baptifm  ;  but  baptize 
over  again  thofe  that  have  already  been  baptized. 
They  deny  that  the  children  of  vilible  Chriflians 
have  a  vilible  right  in  the  covenant  with  their  pa- 
rents, and  take  parents  into  covenant  without  their 
children  j  becaufe,  fliy  they,  it  is  every  man's  own 
faith  muft  make  him  a  fon  of  Abraham.  But  thefc 
things,  I  humbly  apprehend,  are  linful  and  dan- 
gerous principles  and  pradices.  For, 

I.  "  It  is  fetting  up  a  covenant  that  God  never 
**  madej"  a  mere  human  device  ;  a  contrivance  to 
take  in  parents  without  refped  to  their  children. 
And  this  is  fueh  a  covenant  which  is  without  fcrip- 
ture  foundation  :  for  God  never  made  a  covenant, 
in  any  one  inftance,  v^'ith  parents,  without  inclu- 
ding; 


2].  8         .Infant  Bapfijin  vindicate  J. 

ding  children.  The  covenant  of  life  was  not  onl]^ 
with  Adam,  but  for  all  his  pofterity  j  and  after  thd 
apoftafy,  as  foon  as  God  entered  into  a  covenant 
of  grace,  the  promife  was  unto  parents  and  thcif 
children.  And  therefore  Eve  was  called,  "  the 
mother  of  all  living  *  ;'*  not  fo  much  becaufe  all 
mankind  fhould  defcend  from  her,  as  becaufe  (he 
was  to  be  a  covenant  mother,  as  Abraham  was  the 
covenant  Either  of  us  all.  So,  God  made  the  co- 
venant with  Noah  and  with  his  feed  after  him, 
both  before  and  after  the  flood  ^  So  when  the 
church  of  God  was  in  great  diflrefs,  (he  is  put  in 
mind  of  the  covenant  which  God  entered  into  with 
Abraham  and  his  feed,  for  her  fupport  and  encou- 
ragement J  intimating  that  he  ftill  remembered  that 
covenant,  and  would  be  a  God  to  his  people  and 
their  children,  under  all  their  diflrelTes  J.  And 
fo  David  triumphs  in  the  covenant  that  God  made 
with  Abraham,  which  was  renewed  with  David 
and  his  feed.  And  after  the  rejedlion  of  the  Jews, 
the  fame  covenant  was  continued,  as  we  have  ob- 
ferved  in  arguing  upon  the  important  fubjedt. — 
The  Gentiles  were  grafted  into  the  fame  root,  and 
that  root  was  Abraham  and  his  covenant,  in  the 
fenfe  already  explained ;  for  which  caufe  he  is  called 
the  father  of  the  Gentiles  **.  And  it  is  for  this 
very  reafon  that  the  apoftle  faid,  "  The  promife 
**  is  unto  all  that  were  afar  off,  and  to  their  chil- 
*'  dren,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  fhall 
"  call."  This  promife  pointed  to  the  call  of  the 
Gentiles  into  a  church  ftate.  And  when  the  Jews 
fhall  be  gathered  in  again,  they  (]:all  be  brought, 
they  and  their  children,  into  the  fame  covenant, 

out 


*Gen.iii.  20.     f  Gen.  vL  18.  ch.  Jr.  8,  9.    :|:  Ifa.  li.  i,  2,  3. 
^*  Rom,  iv.   16), 


I-fifant  Baptlfm  vindicated,         49 

«ut  of  which  they  were  caft.  Indeed,  the  fcrip* 
tures  fpeak  of  no  covenant,  that  God  has  entered 
Into  with  man,  which  doth  not  comprehend  or 
t-ake  in  children  with  their  parents.  And  there- 
fore a  covenant  that  excludes  the  children  of  cove^ 
nant  parents,  is  a  covenant  of  man's,  and  not  of 
God*s  making.  Now,  would  it  not  be  well  for 
thofe  that  change  and  cut  off  fuch  an  efTential  part 
of  the  covenant,  to  coniider  ferioufly,  whether  it  is 
not  more  thanamerecircumllance,  thus  to  pervert 
God's  order  in  his  covenant?  Uzzah's  offence  in 
touching  the  ark,  when  it  v/as  in  the  way  to  the 
city  of  David,  feemed  to  be  very  fmall.  The  de- 
fign  of  it  feemed  plaufible  to  ihew  his  willingnefs 
to  promote  the  publick  good  :  but  the  matter  of 
order  in  which  he  undertook  to  promote  this  good 
was  fo  offenfive,  that  the  Lord  fmote  tJz^ch  with 
fudden  death,  as  a  teftimony  of  his  difpleafure  a- 
gainft  him.  And  if  a  matter  of  order  is  fo  great  in 
the  fight  of  God,  what  is  it  to  mutilate  the  cove-^ 
nant  of  God  ?  It  is  a  great  fin  to  negledt  or  change 
the  ordinances  of  God  :  but  it  is  flill  a  greater  fin 
to  change  the  everlafting  covenant,  the  Abrahamick 
covenant,  which  is  the  foundation  of  ordinances^. 
Tho*  I  charitably  think  fome  ferious  people  have 
done  this,  for  want  of  due  confideration,  yet  I 
know  of  no  vv^ay  of  finning  more  dangerous  ;  no 
way  more  likely  to  fettle  men  down  in  a  falfe  hope^ 
than  to  change  the  covenant  God  hath  made  with 
his  people.  Did  men  rightly  confider  the  difiinc- 
tion  which  the  fcripture  makes  between  the  vifible 
and  invifiblc  church,  it  might  prevent  this  evil  ; 
but  the  pride  and  prefumption  of  the  heart  draw 
them  away  to  afllime  the  divine  prerogative,    and 

G  tfi) 


j'o         Infant  ^apflfm  ^.indieated. 

%o  take  that  work  ypon  themfqlves  which  belongi 
to  Chiift  only  ^, 

JI.  *'  Denying  the  right  of  baptifm  to  the  chil- 
**  dren  of  believing  parents  is  a  great  injury  done 
**  to  ihem.**  For,  they  are  hereby  cut  off  from 
that  covenant  and  the  privileges  of  it,  v^hich  God 
has  grafted  them  into ;  and  are  put  into  or  placed, 
in  the  fame  condition  with  the  children  of  the  hea« 
then  world,  altho'  our  Saviour  reckons  them  the 
fnembers  of  his  vifible  church.  And  is  it  not  a 
dangerous  thing  to  deny  the  covenant  and  its  privi- 
leges to  thofe  to  whom  they  belong  ?  Is  it  not  of» 
fending  againft  thofe  little  ones,  unto  whom  doth 
appertain  the  privileges  of  vifible  church  member-* 
0)ip  ?  It  is  doubtlefs  very  offenfive  to  God  for  his 
people  to  tolerate  the  admiffion  of  profane  perfons 
into  the  church,  or  tamely  to  fuffer  them  in  the 
chu-rch  if  they  are  admitted  j  and  I  am  perfuaded 
the  negle(51;  of  the  holy  ordinance  of  church  difci- 
pline,  is  the  ready  way  to  make  the  name  of  churches 
and  church  members  mere  empty  notions.— But 
the  offence  is  ft  ill  much  greater  in  any  perfon  or 
fedt,  to  refufe  admiffion  to  thofe  whom  the  Lord 
would  have  received  ;  and  that  becaufc  it  is  a  virtual 
blotting  their  names  out  of  the  laft  will  and  tefta- 
ment  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift.  Should  we  not 
think  it  a  villainous  adt  in  any,  to  take  out  the  name 
of  a  perfon,  that  had  his  name  put  into  the  laft 

will 

^  Matt.  xi'n.  41.  chiip.  xxv.  32,  33.  Some  perfons  feem 
to  lofe  fight  of  the  differenee  between  the  vifible  and  invijible- 
church,  even  by  that  which  is  one  plain  evidence  of  the  diffe- 
rence, viz.  becaufe  there  are  many  hypocrites  and  .unbelievers 
in  the  vifible  church;  and  fo  becaufe  many  baptized  children  wil! 
perifli,  they  v;ould  not  have  them  baptized.  But  this  is  to  be 
>?vife,  rot  only  ah^ve  what  is  written,  but  agaUtfi  what  b 
written. 


Infant    Baptifm  Vindicated,  ^l 

will  and  teflameht  of  a  teftator,  and  ^oiVi^  valuable 
legacy  left  him  ?  Yes :  we  all  fay  it  is  facred  ;  the 
toerfon  muft  have  the  benefit,  and  the  lafl  will  and 
teftament  of  the  teftator  muft  rettiain  unalterable  : 
the  teftament  is  in  force  by  the  death  of  the  tefta* 
tor,  and  cannot  be  altered,  with  reference  to  the 
!aft  will  of  men  that  are  dead.  In  like  manner, 
Paul  argues  the  facrednefs  of  the  privileges  of  the 
feovenant  of  grace,  which  he  calls  a  teftament*; 
and  teaches  tis  that  the  privileges  granted  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  feed  remain  firm  and  unalterable  to 
all  the  covenant-people  of  God  ;  and  that  it  is  in- 
confiftent  with  the  wifdom,  holinfcfs,  and  fdith- 
fulnefs  of  God  to  fet  afide  this  ad!  of  grace  to  his 

feople. -^ ^-*  Will  any  plead  that  children  arc 

t\bi  capable  to  ftipalate  for  themfelves,  and  there 
fore  they  muft  be  fhut  out  from  the  covenant  and 
its  pi  ivileges  ?    To  fuch  the  anfwcr  is  ready  :  when 
the  Lord  takes  a  perfon  into  the  fpiritual  and  in- 
ternal part  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  he  requires  his 
confent  :   but  this  covenant,  as  to  its  external  pri- 
vileges and  admiriiftration,    is'  a  merciful  gift   or 
gratntj  Which  children  of  vifible  believers  have  a 
title  to,  and  are  as  capable  of  entering  into  covenant, 
in  this  reoard,  as  ever.     If  they  were  capable  of 
cireumcifion,  which  was  the  feal  of  tlie  covenant 
under  the  ancient  difpenfation,  they  are  capable  of 
baptifm,  which  is  the  feal  of  the  covenant  under 
the  prefent  difpenfation.     And  if  God  was  greatly 
blended  with  any  tliat  f)«gle<ft'ed  the  feal  of  the  co- 
venant amonty  the  Jews  -J^j  is  it  not  much  m-ore  of- 
fenfive  for  Chriftians,  under  the  clear  fight  of  the 
gofpel,  to  deny  that  the  children  of  believing  pa- 
rents have  any  part  in  the  covenant  itfelf  ?  If  thofc 

that 

*  Gal.  iii.   15.     f  Exod.  iv.  24. 


52        Infant  Bdp-tifrn  vindicated. 

that  were  not  baptized,  in  our  Saviour's  time,  are, 
for  that  reafon,  reprefented  as  defpifers  of  his 
grace  *  ;  what  are  they  guilty  of  that  deny  the 
foundation  of  baptifm,  the  covenant  of  grace,  as 
it  belongs  to  the  children  of  believers  ? 

III.  "  By  the  pradlce  of  re-baptizing  thofe  that 
**  have  been  baptized  in  their  infancy,  the  name 
*'  and  ordinance  of  God  are  diQionoured,  and  the 
^'  reformed  churches  are  fet  at  naught," 

I  fay,  the  name  and  ordinance  of  God  are  dif- 
honoured  by  fuch  a  practice.  If  men  fliould  ex- 
prefs  a  religious  veneration  for  God's  name  and  or- 
dinances, then  a  needlefs,  is  a  iinful  ufe  of  them: 
but  to  ufe  the  name  of  the  blefled  Trinity,,  and 
repeating  baptifm  refpeding  the  fame  fubjedt,  is  a 
needlefs  ufe,  and  therefore  a  Iinful  abufe  of  them. 
It  is  a  pradice  without  any  divine  warrant :  it  can- 
not ferve  any  good  intention  •  it  is  not  an  adt  of 
duty  or  obedience  to  God,  but  mufl  be  ofFenfivc 
in  his  fight.  Would  it  not  therefore  be  very  fuitn. 
able  for  people  who  feem  to  make  light  of  fuch  a 
pradlice,  to  confider  who  hath  required  this  at 
inens  hands  ?  And  whether  God  will  have  his 
work  done  by  our  rules  ?  Or  will  accept  that  at 
our  hands,  which  he  hath  not  appointed  \ 

Again,  the  reformed  churches  are  fet  at  naught 
by  this  pradice.  No  man  can  prove  from  fcrip- 
ture,  that  dipping  the  body  all  over  in  water  is 
neceffary  to  the  e&nce  of  baptifm ;  nor  can  they 
prove  it  from  apoftolick  pradlice  j  and  yet  the  A- 
nabaptifh  make  it  efTential,  tho*  without  warrant,, 

and 

k  *  Luke  Yii.  go. 


Infant  Baptifm  vindicatecJ,       '  53 

and  teach  their  hearers,  that  "  they  have  ground, 
*'  in  their  hearts,  to  judge  fouls  to  be  godly," 
who  do  not  go  into  their  meafures ;  but  as  they 
are  not  baptized,  (becaufe  not  plunged  all  over  in 
water)  and  "  as  baptifm  is  an  introdudion  into 
**  the  vlfible  church,  and  eflential  to  it,"  they  very 
gravely  excommunicate  all  the  reforrr^ed  churches 
in  the  world,  unlefs  they  will  profane  the  ordinance 
of  God,  by  being  re-baptized  or  plunged  into  the 
water.  And  tho*  fome,  to  ferve  their  own  ends, 
may  call  us  Chriftian  churches ;  when  thofe  ends 
arc  attained,  they  teach  their  people  that  wc  and 
our  congregations  -,  we  in  the  miniftry  and  all  our 
churches  J  are  no  vifible  members  nor  churches  of 
Chrift,  but  a  number  of  unbaptized  fouls ;  and 
therefore  unfit  for  their  having  communion  at  the 
Lord's  table  on  any  occafion  whatever.  All  this 
is  on  account  of  a  mode  of  adminlftration,  letting 
themfel^s  up  as  infallible  judges,  and  making  a 
mere  uninftituted  mode  fo  eflential,  I  fay,  as  to 
excommunicate  all  the  reformed  churches,  toge- 
ther with  their  kings,  and  all  in  authority  under 
them.  But,  methlnks,  they  might  have  modefty 
enough  to  flop  their  courfe  a  little,  and  afk  them- 
felves,  whether  It  is  not  poffible  that  fome  others 
may  underftand  Greek  and  Latin,  and  ancient  cuf- 
toms,  as  well  as  they  ?  If  they  could  believe  thls> 
why  fhould  they  condemn  and  rejedt  the  moll  re- 
nowned churches  in  the  world  as  perverters  of  the 
holy  inftitutlon  of  Chrift  ;  becaufe  they  do  not 
pradife  in  the  very  fame  mode  that  they  do?  Doth 
the  kingdom  of  God,  in  the  lal^  times,  confill  in 
a  mere  mode  of  adminiflration,  diftlng^uilhed  from 
all  other  modes?  If  it  doth,  there  is  a  new  thing 
under  the  fun ;   a  gofpel  that  Paul  and  the  other 

apoRlej 


54         Infant  Bapt'ifm  vindicated. 

apoftles  abhorred  in  their  day.  And  I  apprehend, 
thofc  re-baptizers  muft  needs  take  thofe  things  for 
evident  and  important  truth,  refpeding  a  mere 
mode  of  baptifm,  and  a  mode  e0ential  to  the  be- 
ing of  the  facred  ordinance,  which  neither  they 
jior  their  fathers  have  been  able  to  prove  ;  yet  thty 
are  wife  and  good  enough,  to  judge,  condemn, 
and  excommunicate  the  whole  reformed  church 
upon  that  account. -^VVhat  fe<St  in  the  whole  re- 
formed world,  can  we  more  properly  apply  the 
words  of  infpired  Paul  to,  than  to  ihole  that  prac-* 
tifed  after  this  fort  ?  "  Why  is  my  liberty  judged 
*'  of  another  man's  confcience  ?'*  Why  do  they 
Walk  uncharitably  ?  If  they  cannot  baptize  chil- 
dren, why  do  they  excommunicate  thofe  that  are 
baptized,  becaufe  they  are  not  plunged  under  wa- 
ter ?  Why  is  there  this  notorious,  criminal  judg- 
ing, cenfuring,  and  ciafhing  among  thofe  that  call 
themfelves  Chriftians?  At  what  an  unreafonable, 
imprudent  rate  do  they  ufe  their  Chriftian  liberty  ? 
How  will  they  give  us  good  reafon  to  believe  that 
the  learned  part  of  them  have  aded  in  thefe  things 
with  Chriflian  fimplicity  ?  God  grant,  that  they 
and  we  may  confider  Chrift  as  our  judge,  and  that 
before  him  both  parties  fhall  fland  as  perfons  to  be 
tried,  and  to  give  an  account,  expecting  our  final 
doom  from  him,  which  will  be  eternally  conclu- 
iive.  But,  in  the  mean  time,  I  muft  declare,  that, 
as  I  underftand  the  fcriptures,  they  are  guilty  of 
worfe  than  the  Corinthian  fchifm.  For,  the  Co- 
rinthians, tho*  they,  in  the  celebration  of  the  ho- 
ly ordinance,  fell  into  parties,  continued  to  be  one 
church  ;  notwithftanding  their  ftrifes  and  divifions, 
there  was  no  feparation  from  external  communion  : 
but  the  Anabaptifts  not  only  have  feparate  aflemblies, 

but 


Infant  Baptifm  'vindicated.         ^g 

butliold  feparatc  communion  from  the  whole  Pro- 
teilant  church, and  deny  occafional  communion  with 
their  Christian  brethren  that  differ  from  them  in 
the  mode  of  baptifm,  even  tho'  they  profefs  agrec- 
nient  with  them  in  all  dodrinal  articles  in  general. 
How  they,  or  any  for  them,  can  juftify  or  excufe 
fuch  a  fchilm  as  this,  is  quite  beyond  my  comprc- 
henfion.  Paul  reckons  all  fchifm  among  the  works 
of  the  flefh*:  and  it  ought  to  be  really  offenfive  to 
all  good  men  j  for  it  gives  great  advantages  to  the 
enemies  of  the  truth,  and  tends  to  render  true  re- 
ligion contemptible  and  vile  before  the  world. 

Ufe  II.  Learn  hence,  **  that  k  is  a  plain  duty 
**  to  beware  of  thofe  zealots  who  fet  themftlves  up 
■'  againd  our  Chriflian  pra6lice  of  infant  baptifm, 
^*  to  draw  away  difciples  after  them.*'  Some  in 
the  apoftks  days,  and  afterwards,  did  pervert  and 
flrain  feveralfcriptures  to  make  them  patronife  their 
errors ;  thofe  that  had  been  much  efteemed  rofqg| 
up,  and  by  their  plaufjble  inlinuation,  made  divi* 
iions  among  the  difciples  of  ChriO^,  and  brought 
them  over  to  themlelves  as  heads  of  parties  -J-. 
jtlow  fir  this  is  the  cafe  in  our  day,  and  in  thefe 
parts  of  the  land,  men  will  judge  for  themfelves. 
but  I  believe  thofe  that  have  t'le  interefls  of  the 
true  church  at  heart}  thofe  that  love  the  Redeem- 
er's caufe,  are  in  pain,  and  tiemble  for  the  ark. 
Arminianifm  has  long  harboured  itfelf  under  the 
roof,  and  claimed  a  kind  reception  among  the  re- 
formed churches,  tho'  its  doctrines  are  contrary  to 
all  Protefl:ant  confcffions  of  faith.  And  of  late, 
Enthuliafm  and  Anabaptifm  have  joined  hands, 
and  threaten  to  fweep  away  our  glory.     This  was 

the 

^-      .     ■ .-  ■  f 

*  Gi4i.  V.   20,  21.  f  nCU  JkJt.    2y,  30. 


^6        Infant  Baptifm  n^hidlcated, 

the  cafe  very  foon  after  the  reformation  from  Pd* 
pery  began  •  and  like  thofe  that  promoted  it  then, 
fo  now,  as  a  learned  and  pious  divine  has  obfer- 
ved,  "  the  Anabaptifts  are  almoft  every  where  in 
"  a  fevefj  or  paroxifm  of  zeal,  to  make  profelytes 
"  to  their  fchifmatical^  narrow  party  |"  quite  op- 
pofite  to  the  genius  of  the  gofpel  of  Chrift.— Let 
none  of  us  **  fay,  a  confederacy  to  them  to  whom 
**  others  fay  a  confederacy*,"  Be  not  afTociated 
with  them  in  their  confederacies  againft  the  cove- 
nant of  our  God  and  the  holy  pradice  of  the 
church  of  Jefus  Chrift.  We  hold  nothing  in  this 
ordinance  contrary  to  the  inflitution  itfelf :  no- 
thing as  to  the  fubje^t,  but  what  we  have  fupport- 
ed  by  the  word  of  God ;  nothino;  but  what  has 
been  perpetually  obferved  in  the  Chriflian  churchy 
and  conftantly  pra(5lifed  in  the  apoflles  time  j  no- 
thing but  what  the  church  has  been  peaceably 
pofTeffed  of  in  general,  until  the  Anabaptills  in 
gijermany  rofe  up,  and  wrought  woful  tragedies  in 
many  places ;  overthrew  magiftracy,  fet  up  a  king 
of  their  own,  and  committed  many  other  abomi- 
nable deeds. — I  do  not  mention  thcfe  lafl  abomi- 
nations, to  inlinuate  as  if  the  Anabaptifts  in  thefe 
parts  have  gone  into  the  fame  pradices.  But  they 
have  already  fet  up  the  notorious  fchifmatical  prac- 
tice of  excommunicating  all  reformed  churches 
that  do  not  run  their  dangerous  lengths :  and  what 
further  may  not  be  feared,  when  Enthuiiafm,  in- 
ftead  of  real  Chriftianity,  leads  and  governs  any 
part,  whatever  ?  They  who  rend  and  tear  the  church 
of  Chriil  to  pieces,  merely  on  account  of  the  mode 
of  baptizing  j  inftead  of  having  the  covenant  of 
grace  confirmed  to  them  thereby,  may  juftly  fear 

being 

^  iia.  viii.  12^ 


'  Infant  Baptifm  vindicated,  57 

lieing  cut  off  from  Chrift  and  his  gofpel  benefits^ 
whiitever  their  pretences  be.  Would  to  God,  thofe 
that  are  feized  with  this  party  fever^  might  be  du- 
ly fenfible  of  the  aims  and  ends  that  govern  themi 
An  unl.iuful  adion  cannot  juftify  a  good  end  j  if 
it  would,  men  might  lay  the  reins  upon  the  neck 
of  their  corruptions  without  controul,  and  think 
tiiemfelvcs  warranted  in  fchifm  and  other  mifchief, 
under  the  grave  pretence  of  leeking  the  glory  of 
God  J  devoutly  doing  evil  that  good  might  come  : 
fuch  vile  things  have  been,  and  ftill  may  be  prac- 
tifed,  with  abundance  of  feeming  love  to  Chrif>j 
and  a  pretended  heart-breaking  concern  for  preci- 
ous fouls,  and  with  a  tide  of  zeal,  like  a  land- flood ; 
when  all  the  £how  fprings  from  felf-love,  and  zeal 
to  carry  on  bye^ends,  or  to  uphold  or  promote  a 
fchifm  in  the  body  of  Ghrift* 

But,  leaving  them  with  him,  wtiofe  prerogative 
it  is  t)  look  into  the  fecret  thoughts  of  the  liearts 
of  all  men,  and  to  fearch  out  all  their  principleSj 
motives  and  endSj  that  lurk  in  their  inmoft  parts  j 
I  fay,  leaving  them  with  Godj  I  apprehend  it  to 
be  your  duty  and  mine,  fo  to  behave,  as  to  be  no 
ways  aiding  and  abetting  their  principles  or  prac- 
tices; no  ways  conniving  at,  or  encouraging  them 
in  their  defigns.  Tho'  we  muft  be  far  from  cur- 
fing  or  wifliing  evil  to  their  perfons,  yet  we  ought 
to  abhor  their  fchifmatical  pradices,  and  not  love 
the  fin  for  the  fake  of  the  man.  God  knows  whe~ 
ther  this  has  not  been  a  fnare  in  which  Ibme  have 
been  caught,  round  about  you,  as  they  fuppofe  there 
has  been  almoft  a  famine  of  the  pure  word  of  life 
among  them.  But  no  difficulty  whatever  can  juf- 
tity  or  excufe  us  in  putting  countenance  upon  a  plain 

H  fcrip- 


58        Infant  Bapt'ifm  vindicated, 

fcripture  fchifm  :  but,  as  a  teftimony  of  our  owit 
abhorrence,  and  of  our  own  innocence,  we  ought 
to  fay,  as  Jacob  did  in  another  cafe,  "  unto  their 
•*  aflembly,  mine  honour,  be  not  thou  united/* 

This,  my  brethren,  I  do  urge  upon  you  with  an 
honeft  plain  heartednefs;  and,  in  thefe  difcourfes,  I 
truft  that  I  fpeak  confcientioufly,  as  in  the  fight  and 
prefence  of  the  omnifcient  God.  And,  if  you 
(hould  pracflically  defpife  this  counfel,  you  may  fee 
reafon  in  the  bitternefs  of  your  fouls,  to  repent  it 
when  it  is  too  late.  You  that  are  parents  in  parti* 
cular,  may,  by  the  countenance  ycxi  put  upon  this 
fchifm,  fee  and  feel  reafons  of  difcouragement  with 
regard  to  your  children.  A  pradical  treating  fcrip* 
ture  fchifm,  as  tho'  it  were  a  trifle,  may  draw  o- 
thers  to  treat  it  as  fuch  ;  and,  as oneerror  leads  to 
another,  you  may,  in  a  (hort  time,  think  that  your 
children  ftand  upon  a  par  with  heathens ;  no  cove-»\ 
iiant  to  plead  in  their . behalf  j  but  they  are  left  a9 
the  poor  favages  in  the  wildernefs  to  the  uncove- 
nanted  mercy  of  God,  which  muft  needs  damp 
their  fpirits  under  foul  concern,  in  pleading  for  the 
mercy  of  God  in  Chrift  Jefus.  They  could  not 
plead  their  covenant  relation  to  God  as  their  father, 
nor  his  intereft  in  them  as  his  covenant  chilJren, 
They  could  not  plead  their  covenant  privileges  and 
obligations,  nor  ufe  any  other  plea  but  what  art 
heathen  might  ufe.  I  know  indeed  fame  Amino* 
mians  will  call  it  legal,  if  any  fhould  fay  that  the 
children  of  the  covenant  (land  fairer  for  heaven  thaa 
the  heathen  world.  But  I  will  venture  to  fay,  that 
the  covenant  people  of  God  are  warranted  to  plead 
their  covenant  interell  when  they  are  in  diftrefs« 
♦*  Turn  thou  me,  and  I  fliJl  be  turned  3  for  thou 
-     ^  -  .   "  art 


Infant  Baptifm  vindicated,         g^ 

**  art  the  Lord  my  God  *."  Ephraitn  is  repre- 
fented  as  under  convidtion  of  fin,  but  not  convert- 
ed i  and  yer,  in  his  prayer  for  converting  grace,  he 
pleads  his  vilible  relation  to  God,  as  an  argument 
for  this  mercy. — Add  to  this,  if  you  think  hghtiy 
of  re-b  ipiizin^,  and  confequently  treat  it  as  a  fmall 
matter,  you  will  eafily  come  to  think  lightly  of  pro- 
faning the  name  and  ordinance  of  God,  and  will 
naturally  inllill  the  fame  thoughts  into  your  family, 
and  really  encourage  Others  therein. 

U/e  III.  Let  us  (hut  up  all  with  '*  a  word  of 
"  exhortation",  to  parents -,  to  children -,  and  to 
the  church  of  Chrift. 


« 


I.  "  Let  parents  rake  hold  of  the  covenant,  not 
only  for  themfelves,  but  for  their  children  alfo." 
I  apprehend  there  is  -ireat  encouragement  for  be- 
lieving parents  to  muke  this  attempt  ;  for  they  are 
not  only  the  blefTed  of  the  Lord  themfelves,  but 
their  offspring  wiih  thcm-j-.  There  is  a  bleffir^g 
entailed  from  them  to  their  offspring  ;  "  the  feed 
•*  of  the  blcfied  of  the  Lord."  God  has  been 
pleafed  to  enter  into  covenant  with  you  j  ?nd  not 
with  you  only,  but  with  your  feed  af:er  you.  With 
joyful  and  thankful  entertainment  of  this  covenant 
you  ought  to  fall  before  God,  as  Abraham  did  ;{:: 
Or  with  Mofes  undsr  a  fenfe  of  fpecial  obligations 
for  covenant  bleffin^r,  "  behold, the  heaven,  and  the 
*'  heaven  of  heavens,  is  the  Lord's ;  the  earth  alfo 
•*  with  all  that  therein  is.  Only  the  Lord  had  a 
*'  delight  in  thy  fathers  to  love  them,  and  he  chc  fe 
"  their  feed  after  them,  even  you  above  all  people, 
**  as  it  is  this  day**.**    And  is  the  fame  God  your 

covenant 

"♦Jer.  XXII.  ig.  I  I1ai.lxv.33.  JCJen.xvii.  17.  *'*Ueuc.  x.  i^j,  13. 


6o         Infant  Bapufm  'vindicated, 

covenant  God,  and  the  God  of  your  feed  ?  Has  ho 
pot  this  honour  upon  them  as  well  as  upon  you  \ 
Has  he  brought  them  hito  his  kingdom  \      Then 

"  Exercife  faith  in  a  covenant  God  on  their  be- 
*'  half,  in  every  cafe,  and  in  every  branch  of  your 
*'  duty  refpecfting  them."      The  people  of  God 
have  exercifed  faith  upon  the  covenant,  in  behalf 
of  iheir  children.     David  founds  his  plea  for  fami- 
ly bleffings  upon  the  covenant  of  promife,  **  oa 
"  which  God  caufed  him  to  hope."      He  defired 
no  more,  and  expedled  no  lefs.     *^  Let  the  houfe 
*'  of  thy  fervant  he  eftabiifhed  before  thee :    for 
**  thou,  O  Lord  of  hofls,  God  of  Ifrael,  hail  re^ 
*^  vealed  to  thy  fervant,  faying,  I  will  build  thee 
**  an  houfe*."   So  all  believing  parents  Ihould  look 
over  the  promifes  that  God  has  made  refpeQing  the 
children  of  luch,  and  pray,  as  David  did,  for  their 
own  children,  as  being  part  of  the  covenant  which 
the  Lord  has  made  with  them :  "  Let  it  pleafe  thee 
*'  to  blefs  the  houfe  of  thy  fervant  with  thy  blef- 
**  ling,  let  the  houfe  of  thy  fervant  be  truly  and 
**  eternally  bleifed."     And  if  you  exercife  faith  in 
the  promiles  for  your  children,  you  may  entail  very 
great  bleffings  upon  them,  and  live  to  fee  many  good 
things  of  the  covenant  accomplifhed  ui;}to  them, 
which   will  be  matter  of  unfpeakahle  comfort  to 
you,  if  you  fliould  leave  them  in  an  evil  world,  or 
if  they  die  before  you.     How  happy  would  it  be, 
if  you  could  on  good  grounds  view  your  children, 
thole  olive  plants  round  about  your  tables,  likely  to 
fhare  in  the  fpecial  grace  of  the  covenant  1    They 
^re  branches  of  the  good  olive  tree^  and  to  fee  them 
bid  fair  for  trees  of  righteoufnefs  in  the  church  of 

God 

*   3  Sam.  Yii.  -2  6,  27.      i  Chr..xvii.  :?4,  2.5.      ■■    ' 


Infant   Baptifm  nnndicated.        6t 

God  upon  earth,  would  be  comfortable  indeed.'. 
Conijder  how  the  church  is  to  be  kept  up,  in  a  luc- 
ceffion,  by  the  feed  of  the  faithful;  '*  inftcad  of 
•*  the  fathers  Iliall  be  the  children  ;"  as  one  gene- 
ration pafleth  away,  another  generation  ihall  come, 
**  from  hence  forth  and  forever  ?'* 

II.  "  Let  children  walk  worthy  of  their  cove- 
**  nant  privileges  and  engagements."  Has  God 
entailed  his  covenant  upon  you  in  all  its  vifible  pri- 
vileges and  blellings?  Then  take  heed  thai  yoii 
do  not  live  in  the  carelefs  violation  of  its  folemn 
engageQients.  Defpife  not  the  grace  of  God  that 
you  have  received,  but  actually  take  hold  of  the 
covenant  in  your  o.vn  perfons.  Grace  has  hither- 
to prevented  you  ;  has  gone  before,  upheld,  and 
hindered  your  ruin.  God  has  taken  you  into  a  fa- 
miliar covenant  with  himfelf,  of  his  own  mere 
mercy  and  diflinguifhing  grace.  You  might  have 
been  among  the  uncircumcifed,  without  a  covenant 
God  in  the  world.  But  it  is  other  ways,  and  you 
enjoy  a  very  great  privilege  in  being  born  of  cove- 
nant parents,  and  in  having  the  feal  of  the  cove- 
nant put  upon  you.  Confequently,  it  will  be  a 
great  aggravation  of  your  fin,  guilt  and  judgment^ 
if  you,  like  profane  Efau,  defpile  your  birth-right. 
The  contempt  of  fuch  a  privilege  is  a  great  fin  and 
difhonour  to  God,  and  will  add  great  weight  to 
your  guilt,  and  enhance  the  reckoning  another  day. 
You  are  children  of  the  vifible  kingdom  of  grace; 
but  if  you  defpife  the  covenant  of  your  God,  you 
muft  be  cut  off:  if  you  make  light  of  it,  or  reft 
in  your  external  privileges,  you  muft  be  caft  into 
outer  darknefs,  while  "  many  ihall  come  from  the 
**  eaft  and  the  weft,;  and  iliall  fit  down  with  Ar 

**  bfiihani,, 


Si  Infant  Baptifm  vindicated, 

•*  braham,  and  Ifaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom 
^'  of  heaven.'*  O  that  thefe  children  might  be 
•wife  In  time  \  O  that  they  may  take  heed  to  them- 
fulves  in  the  day  of  gracious  vifitation^  left  they, 
who  are  an  holy  flock,  (liould  be  caft  out  as  abo- 
^unable  branches  [  My  young  friends,  if  God 
ihould  open  your  eyes,  and  convince  you  of  fin 
and  mifery ;  if  he  Ihould  make  you  duly  fenfible 
tliat  yoo  have  deftroyed  yourfelves,  and  that  your 
lighteoufnefils  are  as  filthy  rags,  then  ptead  the 
covenant  of  your  God.  *'  Remember  the  cove- 
*'  nant  thou  h^ift  made  unto  Abraham,  and  the 
*^  land  thou  gaveil  unto  Abraham  thy  friend  for 
•*  ever." 

III.  Permit  me  to  addrefs  the  church.  "  And 
*^  O  that  all  the  churches  would  exercife  a  fpecial 
**  Watch  over,  and  tender  compaffion  to  the  chil- 
•'  dren  o{  the  covcjiant/'  i  humbly  apprehend, 
there  hus  been  a  very  great  dtclenfion  in  thefe 
churches,  particuLriy  re(pe(!liiig  their  duty  to- 
wards k.ptizcd  children,  for  many  years  paft. 
And  it  may  be  vv'orthy  of  their  leiicus  confidera- 
tion,  V.  hctlier  it  is  not  partly  owing  to  their  ne* 
gled,  that  fo  many  are  guilty^of  defpifing  the  oath, 
and  breaking  the  covenant  ?  Does  it  not  become 
every  particular  church  to  take  care  that  the  bap- 
tized are  brou;j;ht  up  as  children  of  God,  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord  ?  Surely  fuch 
children  are  members  of  the  vifible  church  $  and 
are  not  they  committed  to  the  care  of  the  church? 
Does  not  the  church  virtually  promife  to  watch  o- 
ver  every  child  that  is  baptized  in  it  ?  If  fo,  it  is 
the  glory  of  the  church  to  bring  forth  children, 
^nd  olfer  them  up  unto  God  ^  to  fee  that  all  things^ 

in 


Infant  Bapiifm  vindkafed.        6^ 

!n  the  Way  of  meanSi  are  attended,  that  they  might 
be  the  Lord's. 

The  general  negleft  of  that  important  duty^' 
which  parents  and  churches  owe  to  their  children, 
is  a  forrowful  obftru(5lion  to  the  fuccefs  of  the  mi- 
ni dry.  Hence  it  comes  to  pafs,  that  we  are  call- 
ed to  build  without  a  foundation  ;  and  our  hearers 
receive  the  grace  of  God  in  vain.  Probably  faith- 
ful minifters  might  do  ten  times  more  good  than 
they  do,  were  parents  and  churches  duly  attentive 
to  teach  and  govern  the  children  of  the  covenant* 
O  that  we  might  fee  a  fpeedy  and  thorough  refor- 
mation of  family  inftrudion,  and  church  infpec^ 
tion,  and  the  well  ordering  of  both  1  And  let 
them  be  excited  to  lay  up  a  ftock  of  prayers  for 
our  children  and  the  riling  generation.  We  (hould 
confider  their  covenant  relation  to  God,  and  their 
extreme  need  of  the  efficacious  grace  of  the  cove- 
nant ;  and  let  thefe  be  powerful  motives  in  our 
hearts,  to  lay  the  hand  of  faith  upon  them,  and 
pray  that,  as  they  rife  up  and  take  our  places,  they 
might  declare  the  name  of  the  Lord  to  fucceeding 
generations* 


APPEN^ 


APPENDIX. 


^x>:#xx:^EVER  AL  months  pad  was  publifli- 
X  r]^  y  ed  for  Philip  Freeman  of  Bojion^  a 
f=  ]^  f  Pamphlet  entitled,  *'  The  Dodrine 
X  X     *'  of  Believers  Baptifin,   by  Immer" 

iCxx#x><:^  ^i fion  only;  aflerted  and  maintain- 
**  ed,  againft  the  attempts  of  Mr.  Jonathan  Par- 
*\fons,  A.  M.  to  invalidate  it,  &€."  By  H,  Smithy 
A.  M.  late  of  NaJau-HalJ,  &c. 


This  Pamphlet  may  be  confidered  as  exfraordi^ 
nary  on  many  accounts :  I  fliall  mention  fome,  as 
follow,  viz.  I .  It  is  very  confideftt  and  ajjmnifig  ; 
and  thereby  it  gives  a  clear  view  of  the  fufficiency, 
temper,  and  religion  of  its  author;  and  alfo  of  the 
defpicable  arts  he  has  ufed  to  fupport  and  propa- 
gate his  favourite  principles.  2.  It  has  met  with  a 
tranfpwting  reception  among  fome  of  thofe  whom 
I  defigned  to  point  out  in  my  ftrmons.  In  fuch 
an  extafy  were  fome^  that  they  reported  that  Mr. 
Parfons  was  dead  ;  and  others,  that  he  was  cut  to 
pieces.  3.  It  is  alfo  remarkable,  that  fo  learned 
a  perfon  as  Mr.  S,  fhould  condefcend  to  take  fuch 
unwearied  pains  to  convidl  an  inconliftent,  weak, 
unrighteous  Smatterer,  as  he  reprefents  me  to  be. 
One  would  have  thought  that  a  perfon  fo  z/w- 
^uarded  in  his  writings,  as  plainly  t(j  fubvert  the 
~ "  I  dcfi^n 


66  APPENDIX. 

defign  of  his  fettlement,  and  to  introduce  juftifi- 
cation  by  the  deeds  of  the  law,  might  have  been 
detected ,  by  thofe  that  had  Uved  under  his  mini- 
jftry  above  twenty  years,  without  the  help  of  his 
learned  pen.  But,  doubtlefs,  Mf.  S,  confidered 
the  Prefbyterians  at  Newbury- Port ,  as  a  company 
of  very  weak  and  ignorant  people  ;  and  therefore 
that  they  flood  in  need  of  fome  able  inftrudtor  to 
teach  them,  and  confequently  dare  not  refufe  his 

aid. If  it  were  not  fo,  why  fhould  he,    with 

fo  much  ardour  and  pity,  like  a  perfon  in  diftrefs, 
call  upon  them,  once  and  again,  to  view  me  as  a 
poor,  inconfijlent^  felf-contradi(flory  writer  ? — one 
that  fhifts  from  fide  to  fide  } — prefumptuous  and  ig- 
norant^  rirangely  confounding  the  covenant  of 

grace  and  covenant  of  works  ? — whofe  inconfiflen" 
cy  ii  very  evident  ? — who  twifls,  turns,  and  chan- 
ges the  order  of  Chrift's  commiffion  ? — vindicates 
his  tenets  only  by  unrighteous  methods  ? — publickly 
patronizes  Arminianiim^falfe  do^irine^ — bad  divi- 
nity— contrarv  to  o>'thcdox)\  &c.  &c.  &c.  ?  I  fay, 
one  would  have  thought  that  a  perfon  of  Mr.  «S's 
penetration  might  have  feen  it  needlefs  to  take  fo 
much  pains,  and  to  do  me  this  great  honour,  and 
abundance  more  of  the  like  nature. 

But  fince  he  thous^ht  it  worth  while  to  tug  hard, 
and  twift  into  almofl  any  Shape  to  mifreprefent 
me,  and  to  gain  his  point  in  view ;  and  has  alfo 
fent  me  one  of  his  learned  pamphlets,  containing 
fifty  fix  pages,  befides  the  preface,  he  may  poffi- 
bly  think  more  highly  of  himfelf,  than  he  ought, 
if  there  is  no  publick  notice  taken  of  it.  But  I 
hope  the  render  will  not  defpife  the  good  caufe  I 
have  humbly  attempted  to  defend,  on  account  of 

'  ths 


APPENDIX.        .67 

the  great  abilities  of  my  antagoniil:.  Let  him  not 
have  the  faith  of  our  Lord  Jejus  Chrifi  with  re- 
fpedt  of  pcrfons  j  for,  if  that  (hould  be  the  cafe, 
he  would  not  judge  of  the  controverfy  according 
to  the  evidence  brought  in  favour  of  the  truth,  but 
according  to  the  efteem  he  has  of  the  pcrfon  of- 
ferins  it.  Truth  has  often  run  great  hazards,  be- 
caufe  the  perfon  that  vindicates  it  is  not  efieemed 
by  the  perfon  that  reads  it.  But  if  you  will  muke 
truth  your  greateft  advantage,  I  need  not  fear  the 
evils  of  your  cenlure.  In  hopes  of  a  candid  at- 
tention in  the  reader,  I  fh'all  now  begin  3  and 

I.  Take  a  glance  upon  Mr.  »S's  preface.     He 
fays  **  a  good  name  is  rather  to  be  chofen  than 
"  great  riches."      ylgreed:  but  perhaps  we  fliall 
differ,    if  I  tell  him,   that  the  good  name  (pokcn 
of  by  Solomon,  is  a  name  io^  good  things  r,  a  name 
that  has  its  foundation  laid  in  an  innocent,  unbla- 
mable life  and  converfation  j  a  name  that  renders 
a  perfon  truly  worthy  of  honour.     And  whether 
Mr.  S.  deferves  a  good  name,  in  this  fenfc,   thofe 
that  know  him  perfonally,   and  his  readers,  will 
judge  for  thcmfelves. — He  complains  of  "  a  hea- 
"  vy  and  unjufl  charge"  alledged  by  me  again  ft 
him  in  my  difcourfes  at  Haverhill,   on  the  fubjecl 
of  infant- baptifm.    But  1  know  of  nothing  in  thofe 
difcourfes  that  he  needs  to  groan  under,    but  the 
weight  of  the  argum^ents  1  adduced  to  fupport  ti-.e 
main  truths'  exhibited. — But  Mr.  S.  meant  a  mr.f- 
ginal  note  concerning  a  zealous  anabaptift  teacher, 
which,  as  it  is  offeniive,  I  drop  in  the  fccond  edi- 
tion :  but,  inftead  of  it,  I  think  my  fclf  bound  to  give 
my  readers  a  few  fcraps  oi  hiftorical  truths,  v/hich 
poffibly  niay  bv  as  difagieeab.e  as  die  note  i:fcU. 


68  APPENDIX. 

In  converfation,  more  than  two  years  ago,  a 
profeffed  baptifi  very  frankly  told  me,  that  "  he 
*'  looked  upon  a  particular  mode  of  baptifm,  as 
•*  diOinguifhed  from  other  modes,  not  at  all  elTen- 
**  tidl  to  the  beitig  of  that  ordinance ;  and  that  he 
**  could  freely  join  with  us  in  the  facrament  of  the 
*'  Lord's  fupper.'*  About  the  fame  time,  the 
fame  candid  perfon  told  another  minifter,  and  fe- 
veral  others,  that  he  could  freely  baptize  the  in* 
fiincs  of  believers,  eiiher  by  fprinkling  or  flfFufion, 

if  the  parents  defiied  it. He  alfo  told  me,  that 

the  delign  of  his  taking  a  long  journey  into  thefe 
parts,  was  to  preach  Chrift  among  poor  people 
that  could  not  procure  preachers. — That  he  de- 
fired,  to  this  end,  to  travail  down  to  the  eaftern 
letilements,  and  preach  among  them,  from  place 
to  place,  until  the  then  fall  of  the  year,   when  he 

ihould  return  back  to  the  Jerfeys. —I  told  him, 

if  the(e  thmgs  were  fo,  I  was  willing,  upon  cer- 
tain conditions,  to  write  in  his  favour.-^—He  ,ex- 
prefTed  his  thanktulnefs;  and  mentioned  his  defire 
of  my  writing  feveral  times. — Accordingly  I  Wiote 
to  one  minifter  and  one  ruling  elder.  I  told  them, 
in  mv  letters,  who  the  bearer  was,  and  what  his 
profcfTcd  defign  was.  1  read  him  both  of  the  let- 
ters, and  he  exprefled  his  approbation  of  my  cau- 
tious manner  of  writing  as  to  his  fentiments  about 
bipiifm;  and  took  the  letters  with  a  low  bo^.— 
I  then  took  him  alone,  and  told  him  that  I  was 
pleafed  to  fee  young  men,  as  well  as  others,  zea- 
Ions  in  religion  :  but  that  zeal  without  light  was  a 
very  dangerous  thing. — — That  I  had  obferved  he 
was  very  zealous ;  but  he  mud  not  take  it  ill  of 
me,  if  J  alfo  told  him  that  he  appeared  raw  in  di- 
vinity,  and  that  fueh  preaching  as  I  had  heard 


APPENDIX.  69 

from  him  did  not  tend  to  ferve  his  profeiTed  de- 
{ign.  Therefore  I  urged  him  to  ftudy  more,  and 
preach  lefs ;  and  told  him,  if  he  would  be  faith- 
ful to  his  pretenfions,  and  clofely  apply  himfclf 
to  ftudy,  I  wiS  willing  he  fliould  keep  the  letters, 

and  go  forward. Upon  this  he  exprefled  his 

refolutions  to  take  my  advice:  and  told  me  he  ex- 
pe^ed  to  fet  out  towards  the  eaftem  feltlements 
the  next  Friday^  &c.  &c. 

In  this  account,  I  am  fully  fatisfied  that  there  is 
not  one  idea  communicated^  but  what  was  conveyed 
in  converfation,  beiides  many  more  which  I  omit 
for  the  fake  of  brevity.  But  if  the  cafe  (hould 
hereafter  call  for  it,  I  expedt  many  other  things 
will  be  produced,  and,  if  need  be,  fworn  to, 
which  may  give  further  light  refpeding  a  certain 
perfon,  who  feems  to  fet  a  great  price  upon  a 
good  name. — Whether  this  view  of  the  cafe  fuits 
better  than  the  marginal  note,  Mr.  S.  and  his 
friends  may  judge.  Since  they  have  made  a  great 
noife  about  it,  and  he  has  infinuated  in  his  preface, 
that  I  did  not  believe  myfidf,  I  think  duty  has 
called  me  to  publi(h  thefe  hints :  and  if  he  can 
conftrue  Latin,  he  may  think  of  what  follows, 
viz. 

^li  mittit  in  altum  lapidem^    recidet  in  caput  ejus» 

When  I  had  carefully  read  over  Mr.  S^s  won-- 
derful  piece  againfl;  my  vindication  of  the  dodtrine 
of  infant-baptifm^  it  put  me  in  mind  of  a  faying  of 
one  of  the  Fathers  ;  corrodunt  non  corriguni -,  cor- 
reptores^  immo  cnrriiptorfs.  And  alfo,  of  SauVs 
.piety,  who  fays,  "  I  forced  myfelf,  and  offered  a 

burnt- 


yo  APPENDIX. 

burnt-ofFering,"  /  e.  he  did  it  without  a  divine  war- 
rant }  and  it  proved  to  his  own  hurt.  And  thefc 
two  things  I  leave,  for  the  prefent,  to  Mr.  «S's  mor© 

fober  refledlion, But  the  reader  muft  allow  me 

to  obferve,  that  the  many  noify  explofions  of  his 
heart,  (fometimes  pitying  my  ignorance  ;  at  other 
times  accuiing  me  of  uling  unrighteous  m^ethods 
to  accompli(h  my  defign  ;  then  attacking  my  fen- 
timentsin  divinity,  and  anon,  charging  me  with 
inconiiftency  ;  pitying  my  poor  deluded  people, 
and  warning  them  to  take  heed,  £?f.  ^c!)  I  fay, 
the  many  things  of  this  nature,  often  repeated  with-' 
'  cz^^  evidence,  are  fW^^-zz^  marks'of  great  diftrefs, 
and  loud  calls  to  his  dear  brethren  for  their  help. — 
Yet,  if  he  fliould  be  more  noify  ftill,  and  reprelent 
me  in  darker  colours,  (If  that  can  be)  1  pray  God 
to  grant  him  the  fpecial  knovv  ledge  of  the  faving 
truth  ;  and  hope,  through  grace,  I  iliall  always  bs 
able  to  fay,  weatn  injuriam  patienter  tuli  -,  injuria 

am  contra  jpoujam  Cbrijii  ferre  non  potui, 1  ihall 

endeavour  to  bury  his  mean  infults  upon  me  in  for- 
getfulnefs  5  but  his  injuries  dor^e  to  the  important 
truths  of  God,  and  the  caufe  of  \}^t  great  Redeem- 
ery  are  injufferahle.  And,  in  vindication  of  my 
arguments  for  the  truth,  againft  his  wild  excepti- 
ons, the  reader  ought  not  to  be  offended  if  I  am 
led  to  cxpofe  him, 

He  fpends  the  ^th  page  of  his  pamphlet,  chief- 
ly in  endeavouring  to  perfuade  his  readers  that  I 
am  inconfiftent  with  myfelf.  But  for  his  help  to 
a  good  underftanding  of  EttgUJh,  and  for  the  be- 
nefit of  others,  who  may  be  at  a  lofs  about  the 
meaning  of  words,  I  muft  inform  them,  that  by 
initiating,  and  by  the  feal  or  mark  cf  indxi^ion  in- 

ta 


APPENDIX.  71 

to  the  church,  &c.  I  mean  the  fame  that  every 
honefl:  perfon  means,  if  he  underflunds  E7jgUJ}\ 
viz.  Performing  the  fir  ft  rite  unto  qualified  fub- 
jefls  ;  or  putting  the  mark,  token,  or  feal  upon 
them,  and  thereby  making  their  right  manifeft. — 
This,  applied  to  baptifm,  is  marking  out  and  ma- 
nifefting  the  perfons  baptized,  to  be  what  they 
really  are,  viz.  Members  of  the  vifible  church. 
By  that  inftituted  rite  they  arc  folemnly  admitted, 
bccaufe,  in  a  qualified  fenfe,  they  were  members 
before  ;  as  a  child  born  in  an  army  is  enrolled  be- 

caufe  he  is  the  king's  foldier,  Gfr. This  hint,  I 

hope,  will  help  Mr.  S's>  underftanding  :  and  if  it 
fliould,  poffibly  he  may  underftand  what  follows, 
"liz.  \Umo:v7i  qualifications  make  ^tx(ou5  members 
of  the  vifible  church  3  then  baptifm  does  not  7?iakc 
them  members  of  the  vifible  church  :  but  known 
qualifications  make  them  members  of  the  vifible 
church  J  therefore  baptifm  does  not  7nake  them 
fo.  'Tis  granted  ;  baptifm  isafolemn  rite  of  ad- 
mifiion  ;  or  an  enrolment  of  the  party  baptized  5 
but  he  has  tins  mark  or  feal  put  upon  him,  becaufe, 
in  a  qualified  fenfe,  he  was  a  member  before  : 
otherwife,  it  would  be  abfurd  to  admit 'or  enroll 
him,  or  to  initiate  him  by  the  feal  ot  the  covenant. 

I  Shall  now  enter  upon  the  confideration  of  the 
main  thinis  intended  by  Mr.  5.  againfi:  my  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  infant- baptifm.       And 

T.  Againft  the  firfl  argument  he  ofifers  feveral 
things,  which,  if  he  had  proved,  it  might  ferve  his 
purpofe.  P.  6.  he  very  confidently  aflerts  that  no 
perfons  have  a  right  to  the  fign  ofmemberfliip 
without  (before)  they  make  a  profeflion  of  faitla 

and 


72  APPENDIX, 

and  repentance.     To  prove  this  he  adduces  A5fs 
ii.  38.  and  yiii.  37.    But  if /Mr.  5.  would  prove 
any  thing  from  the^^criptures,  I  fuppofe  it  is,  that 
thoiQjews  to  whovnPeter  preached,  and  thtEuriucb 
who  fought  to  be  baptized  by  Philip,  were  requi- 
red to  profefs  faith  and  repentance.     And  what  is 
that  to  the  purpofe  ?  Will  he  argue  that  the  adult 
muft  profefs  faith  and  repentance,  in  order  to  bap^ 
tifm  ?  And  who  does  he  oppofe  in  it,  unlefs  it  be 
a  man  of  ftraw  of  his  own  making  ?    But  will  it 
follow  that,  becaufe  the  adult  are  to  profefs  faith 
and  repentance  in  order  to  baptifm,  therefore  their 
children  have  no  right  to  baptifm  ?  If  Mr.  S,  would 
do  any  thing  againft  my  argument  he  muft  fliow 
that  the  covenant  of  promife  to  men  in  a  church- 
ftate,  does  not  comprize  their  children  :    or  that 
none  but  thofe  who  arc  capable  of  profeffing  faith 
are  taken  into  covenant  with  God.     Whereas,  had 
he  honeftly  confidered  ih^  39/^  verfe  of  that  2d 
chapter,  the  mafk  would  have  drjpt  and  difcovered 
hisweaknefs.  Repent  and  be  baptized, ^c.  For  the 
promife  is  unto  you  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all 
that  are  afar  off,  even   as  many  as  the  Lord  our 
God  (hall  call.     In  thefe  words  of  the  Apoftle,  the 
reader  may  fee  an  encouragement  to  baptifm,   ta- 
ken from  a  covenant-privilege,  which  is  fet  forth 
as  it  was  extended  to  the  Jews,  and  to  their  chil- 
dren;  and  then  to  the  Gd';7^//W, when  they  fhould 
be  called  into  the  fame  church -ftate  that  the  Jewi 
were  in  at  that  time.    The  call  here  fpoken  of 
can't  mean  an  efFeiflual  call,  fuch  as  is  proper  to 
them  that  are  fandtified  by  the  holy  Spirit  :  for  if 
it  were  fo,  the  n)ifihle  token  of  memberihip,  would 
be  limited  to  the  invijible  •  hurch.  But  it  is  a  call 
unto  a  church-Hate,  fuch  as  the  Jews  did  enjoy  at 


APPENDIX.  73 

that  time.  Hence,  the  reader  may  fee  the  force  of 
Peter' ^  argument  ib  this,  '>Jtz.  "  Thole  have  a  ri^ht 
to  bapdfm,  unto  whom  the  covenant  of  promife  be- 
longs :  but  this  covenant  belongs  to  all  in  the  vifi- 
ble  church,  and  to  their  children."  None  can  deny 
the  firil:  propolition,  unlels  they  oppofe  the  Apoftle 
himfelf.  And  as  to  the  2d  propolition,  that  the  co- 
venant comprifes  children  with  parents,  the  Apoltie 
plainly  (hows  :  for  when  he  aliigns  the  firit  place 
to  the  'Jews^  and  takes  in  their  children,  he  refers  to 
the  promife  of  God's  covenant  in  Gen.  xvii.  7.  And 
as  the  bleffingof  thtAbrahamick  covenant  run  to  the 
"Jews  and  their  feed,  until  they  were  broken  off,  fo 
it  was  to  come  upon  the  GeiitileSy  who  were  then 
far  from  God,  and  from  his  covenant  j  but  to  be 
brought  in,  even  they  and  their  children. 

What  Mr.  S.  would  reprefent  of  me,  (  Page  6  J 
and  7. )  gives  me  no  pain.  It  is  common  with 
weak  people,  for  want  of  argument,  to  make  ufe 
of  many  bugbear  words,  thereby  to  alarm  their 
weak  admirers.  I  am  willing  to  hope  that  it  was 
his  profound  ignorance  of  the  extent  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  that  led  him  to  reprefent  me  as  an 
Arminian^  holding  dangerous  doSirine  ;  giving  up 
the  important  do5lrine  of  regeneration  5  teaching 
jufiijication  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  -,  fubverting 
the  very  foundation  of  my  fettiement  ^^Newbury; 
and  maintaining  total  apojiafy  from  the  grace  of 
efFedtual  calling,  with  many  other  fentences  of 
falfe  terror.  1  fay,  that  I  am  willing  to  hope  on 
the  moft  charitable  lide  ;  had  it  not  been  manifeft 
that  he  expected  to  make  great  advantages  to  him- 
felf  by  this  falfe  alarm. — The  reader  may  prcfent- 
ly  fee  that  all  thefe  rcprefentations  are  abnjive  flan- 
K       "'  ders^ 


74  APPENDIX. 

ders,  and  groundlefs  charges  ;  tending  neither  to 
help  his  caufe,  nor  uphold  that  good  name,  which 
he  profcfTed  to  value  above  great  riches,  in  his  firft 
letting  out. 

In  the  next  place,  upon  my  fir  ft  argument,  he 
boggles,  and  ftarts  at  my  aflerting  that  the  Abra- 
hamick  covenant  is  the  covenant  of  grace.  Now, 
although  I  offered  light  enough  to  prove  this  truth, 
under  the  2d  he.d  of  my  firft  argument,  to  fatil- 
fy  a  ferious  reader  ;  yet,  as  further  evidence,  you 
may  take  what  follows,  viz»  i.  That  covenant 
wherein  God  makes  over  himfelf  to  a  perfon,  is 
the  covenant  of  grace  ;  but  God  made  over  himfelf 
unto  Abraham  and  to  his  feed,  in  that  covenant 
which  he  eftablifhed  between  himfelf  and  Abra^ 
hum^  Gen.  xvii.  7.  therefore  that  covenant  is  the 
covenant  of  grace.  The  major,  or  nrft  propofition 
mufi  be  true  ;  becaufe,  fince  the  fall  of  Adam^  God 
is  not  the  God  of  any  out  of  Chrift.  The  minor, 
or  2.d  propofition  is  exprefsly  afifcrted  in  the  text 
referred   to  ;    and  therefore  the  confequence    is 

unavoidable. 2.  That  covenant  which  repre- 

fents  God  as  (hewing  mercy  to  finners,  is  the  co^ 
venant  of  grace  :  but  the  Abrahamick  covenant  re- 
prefents  God  in  this  view,  Exod.  xxxiv.  6.  there- 
fore it  is  the  covenant  of  grace.  There  is  no  me- 
diator, no  peace  with  God,  no  pardon  of  fin  held 
forth  in  the  covenant  of  works :  But  thefe  blefilngs 
are  held  forth  in  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham 

and  his  feed, 3.  That  covenant  to  which  the 

typical  fucrifices  did  belong  is  the  covenant  of  grace: 
but  the  typical  lacrifices  did  belong  to  the  Abra- 
hamick  covenant  ;  therefoit  it  is  the  covenant  of 
grage»~— Aii  the  faciinces  under  the  law,-  had 
"  ;"~  "  "     fome 


APPENDIX  7J 

fome  rerpe(5l  to  the  great  facrificc  of  Chrifl,  and  its 
blefled  efferts.  They  were  to  fliew  men  th  it 
without  fliedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remiffion  of 
fins.  And  God  ratified  this  covenant  by  blood, 
which  he  fprinkled  upon  the  book  of  the  laitf, 
as  it  lay  upon  the  altar,  to  confecrate  it  to  facred 
ufe,  as  containing  the  covenant,  in  which  God  was 
one  party  j  and  fprinkled  it  alfo  upon  the  people, 
as  the  other  party  in  that  covenant,  typicully  repre- 
fenting  that  the  covenant  betv/ecn  God  and  belie- 
vers ihould  be  confirmed  by  the  blood  of  Chrifi-, 
Exod.  xxiv.  5,  6,  7.  Heb.  ix.  19.  Hence,  the  law 
in  its  adminiftration  w^as  never  intended  by  God  to 
fet  forth  a  covenant  of  works,  but  the  covenant  of 
grace.  And  it  is  ufually  called  a  covenant,  (ee  Deut, 
xxix.   10,   II.  Chap.  xxvi.    17,   18.  belides  other 

fcriptures. 4.  That  covenant  which  binds  to 

the  obfervation  of  the  ceremonial  law,  is  a  cove- 
nant of  grace  :  but  ih.Q  Abrahamici^  covenant  bound 
the  people  of  God,  under  the  former  difpenfation, 
to  obferve  the  ceremonial  law  :    therefore   it  was 

the  covenant  of  grace.   5.  That  covenant 

which  God  made  with  Mofes,  was  the  covenant  of 
grace  ;  for  Mofes  was  a  believer,  Heb.  xi.  23.  But- 
the  covenant  which  God  made  with  Mc/iSy  he 
made  with  all  I/rae/,  Exod.  xxxiv.  27,28.  there- 
fore it  was  the  covenant  of  grace. 

Having  offered  thefe  arguments  very  briefly,  iti 
addition  to  the  evidences  in  my  Sermon,  I  (hall 
endeavour  to  colieft  Mr.  S*s  objedions  in  the  fair- 
eft  light  I  am  able,  out  of  fo  much  darknefs  as 
covers  them.     And  here 

L  If  he  is  intelligible,  I  think  he  objcds  (P.  10. 

and 


7^ 


APPENDIX. 


and  I  r.  and  many  other  places)  that  If  the  covenant: 
of  grace  was  made  with  Abraham  and  his  feed, 
then  fome  that  were  efFedually  called^  might  af-* 
terwards  fall  away,  and  finally  perilli.  This  he 
iiippofes  Mr.  P.  would  not  choofe  to  aflei  t  ;  but 
yet  luppoks  it  mufl  be  the  conlequence  of  my  opi-* 
nion  relpedling  the  j^hrahamick  covenant.  And  to 
iliow  that  all  the  children  of  believing  parents  can't 
be  Included  in  their  parents  covenant,  (without 
iinal  fallini  from  grace)  he  feveral  times  over  men- 
lions  Jjhm^el,  Hophnij  PhineaSy  and  others,  as 
perfons  that  were  not  included  in  the  covenant 
wi:h  their  pr^rents  ;  or  if  they  were,  then  that  the 
iinal  perfevcrance  of  the  faints  is  not  true.  This 
again  he  intimates,  that  1  ihould  not  readily  and 
openly  profefs  whatever  my  private  opinion  might 
be,  fiiice  I  have  openly  profelTed,  and  zealoully 
maintained  the  final  perfevcrance  of  the  faints,  o? 
of  all  thofe  that  are  effectually  called,. 

Now,  whatever  my  prefent  fentlments  are,  re- 
fpedting  the  total  apoftafy  of  fome  that  have  been 
fcivingly  converted,  Mr.  S.  knows,  at  leafl:  he  ought 
to  have  known  before  he  commenced  an  author, 
that  other  divines,  of  much  greater  importance  to 
-the  church  than  either  of  us,  have  held  the  final 
perfevcrance  of  the  faints ;  and  yet  have  conftantf 
ly  aiferted  that  the  children  of  believers  are  inclu- 
ded in  the  covenant  of  grace  with  their  parents.— 
.Therefore,  if,  upon  this  head,  he  would  have  fai4 
any  thing  realty  to  anfwer  his  defign,  he  fhould 
have  proved,  if  that  were  poffible,  that  none  but 
thofe,  who  are  effedually  called,  are  included  \i\ 
the  covenant  of  grace.  But  this  he  has  not  once 
acteippted  to  dg  5  nor  will  he  be  able  to  do  it^  by 

thp 


APPENDIX.  77 

utmoft  efforts,  without  recourfe  to  a  new  Bi- 
ble. 

Tho'  he  has  done  nothing,  by  way  of  argument, 
to  lupport  this  his  anttjcriptural  cavil,  I  (hall,  h)r 
the  fake  of  thofe  readers  that  lincerely  deiire  to  em- 
brace the  truth,  oiler  a  lew  things  further,  viz. 


<c 


J,  It  is  very  evident  from  the  Scriptures,  that 
the  covenant  of  believing  parents  takes  in  all 
**  their  feed.''  Jt  took  in  itli  the  natural  feed  of 
Abraham  by  Sarah,  Rom.  ix.  y^  H.  Tho'  but  few 
of  them,  compared  with  thewholj?,  partook  of  the 
internal  and  everlafling  bleffings  of  the  covenj.r^  of 
grace,  yet  all  who  defcended  from  Abraham  in  cue 
line  of  Ifaac  and  yacob  were  the  children  of  God, 
adopted  into  his  family,  which  compiiled  the  wl^ole 
body  of  the  Jews  ;  and  they  all  enjoyed  the  ten*- 
poral  and  the  external  bleffings  of  the  covenant. 
Job.  viii.  33t  37,  39.  IjhmaelAio  was  in  covenant 
at  the  time  of  his  circumcifion,  and  his  circumci- 
iion  was  a  proof  of  it.  Gen,  xvii.  1 1.  And  he  con- 
tinued in  covenant,  until,  by  God*s  fpecial  com- 
mand, he  was  cafl  out  for  mocking  his  brother. 
Gen.  xxi.  9,  10,  12.  In  like  manner  God  will  ^.v- 
dude  thofe  from  his  covenant,  who  feek  to  be  juf- 
tified  by  the  law,  and  defpile  the  righteoufnefs  of 
Jefus  Chrift,  GaL  iv.  29,  30.  There  are  two  forts 
of  people  in  the  vifible  church  :  one  fort  walketh 
in  the  fteps  of  faithful  Abraham^  and  the  other 
fort  walketh  after  the  fiefh  :  and  this  will  probably 
be  the  cafe  to  the  end  of  time.  And  all  in  the 
vilible  church  are  called  fons  of  God,  children  of 
the  covenant,  becaufe  they  are  diilinguiilied  with 
great  and  precious  external  privileges,  as  the  fa- 
vourites 


yS 


APPENDIX. 


vourites  of  heaven,  Rom.  ix.  4.  They  enjoy  the 
vi/ible  tokens  of  the  divine  prefence,  in  oppofition 
to  thofe  that  are  not  in  the  vilible  church,     bo  all 
the  ifraelites  were  Jews  outwardly,  Deut,  xiv.  i. 
Mat,  viii.  12.  JBs  iii.  25.  And  this  was  not  only 
true  of  the  Jews^    but  it  is  now  the  privilege  of 
the  Gentiks^  who  were  Grangers  to  the  covenant 
of  grace   in   its  various  editions,   until  they  were 
called  into  a  vifible  church-ftate,    Eph.u.  12,  19. 
Gal.  iii.   26.     I   prefumc  no  perfon  (except  it  be 
an  Afitinomian)  will  venture  to  fay  that  all  thofe 
who  were  called  into  a  church^flate  at  Ephefus^ 
were  effeSfually  CdMtd  by  due  holy  Spirit.  Efpecially, 
it  cannot  be  fuppofed,    with  any  colour  of  reafon, 
that  the  Galatian  convevis^  who  forfook  Faul^  and 
followed  the  judaizing    teachers,   and    enmbraced 
their  pernicious  errors,  were  favingly  converted  to 
God.     Their  furprifing  condudl  againft  that  emi^ 
nent  apoftie  was  from  evident  hatred  to  the  truth  ; 
particularly,  to  thofe  great  dodrines  which  he  af- 
lertcd  and  maintained  againft  thofe  that  preached 
another  gofpel.    Neverthelels,  they  were  members 
of  the  vifible  church,  and  the  covenant  people  of 
God,     And,  as  thofe  hypocrites  were  in  covenant 
for  outward   privileges,  io  the  covenant  included 
their  feed  with  them,  as  to  luch  privileges,  as  fully 
as  if  they  had  been  effedually  called. 

II.  Vi/ible  church  memhen  have  been  cafl  out  of 
their  covenant  relation  to  God  j  they  and  their 
children.  None  but  thofe  that  were  in  covenant 
could  be  cad  out,  i  Cor.  v.  12,  13.  The  jurifdid:ion 
of  church-rulers  doth  not  extend  to  the  heathen, 
but  to  the  covenant  people  of  God.  Thofe  that  are 
left  out  of  covenant  are  left  to  the  judgment  of 

God 


APPENDIX.  79 

God  in  the  adminiftrations  of  his  providence  :  but 
thofe  that  are  the  covenant  people  of  God  are  caft 
out,  when  they  appear  to  be  irrecoverable.  So 
Cain  was  caft  out  of  the  church.  Gen.  iv.  ii,  14, 
And  this  is  an  immoveable  evidence  that  he  was  in 
covenant  with  God,  until,  for  his  bloody  crime 
againft  his  brother^^/,  he  was  caft  out.  The  rejec- 
tion, both  of  Cain  and  IJhmael^  neceffarily  infer 
their  being  members  of  the  viiible  church.  They 
were  boih  in  covenant  with  God  ;  but  when  he 
caft  them  out,  they  were  not  to  be  looked  upon  in 
covenant  any  longer  ;  nor  could  they  lay  claim  to 
any  covenant-privileges.  The  fame  is  true  of  the 
whole  nation  of  the  Jews ;  they  and  their  feed^ 
Once  they  were  a  chofen  nation,  a  peculiar  people, 
feparated  to  God  as  his  covenant  people  >  Jews  by 
nature,  and  not  linners  of  the  Gentiles.  To  them 
did  belong  all  the  precious  external  privileges  of  the 
church  of  the  living  God,  Rom.  \x.  4.  Deut.  xxix, 
12,  14,  15. — and  yet  very  few  of  them  were  ii-* 
nally  faved.  And  thofe  that  rejecfted  Chrift,  and 
continued  to  do  fo,  after  he  came  in  the  fleili  and 
was  crucified,  were  caft  out  of  the  church,  and 
God  has  piiblickly  difowned  them  and  their  chil- 
dren for  his  people,  unto  this  day  ! — »The  fame  aw- 
ful threatening  lies  againft  the  Gentile  church ;  and 
it  mav  be  ju  Hy  expeOed  that  the  threatening  will 
be  executed,  when  and  where,  and  fo  far  as  their 
ffate  and  condud  call  for  it,  Rev.  ii.  5, 

But  fays  Mr.  S.  by  Mr.  Ms  help,  if  the  cafe  is 
as  I  have  reprefented  it,  then,  i.  Some  that  are  juf- 
tiiied  andfandified  may  be  finally  loft.  And  2.  that 
believers  before  Abraham^  day  could  not  go  to 
heaven,  They  could  neither  be  juftified  nor  con- 
'  '"  demned  : 


go  APPEND!  X. 

demnc^  :  they  could  go  neither  to  heaven  not 
hd\y(sc,  vid.  P.  1 1  —  14*  And  the  rea(on  he  gives 
is  beeaufe  they  are  out  of  Abraham's  covenaet. 

To  the  firfl  of  thefe  I  anfwer  5  the  covenant  of 
grace  hath  t'wo  parts,  anfwerable  to  the  pronaifes 
contained  in  it.  The  promifes  of  juflification,  fane- 
tification,  and  everlafting  bleiTcdnefs  are  inexprefli- 
bly  the  moft  excellent.  But  there  are  Ipiritual 
privileges  and  worldly  good  things  alfo,  comprifed 
in  the  covenant  of  grace,  i  7m.  4.  8.  People  may 
be,  and  h^ve  been  in  the  covenant  of  grace  for  fpi- 
ritual  privileges,  who  never  were,  or  will  be  jufli- 
fied,  landlified  and  glorified,  Rom.  iii,  i,  2.  Hof, 
viii.  12.  Rom.  ix.  4.  All  the  feed  of  believers  are 
taken  into  the  outward  privileges  of  the  covenant  j 
and  they  may  and  ought  to  claim  them  as  their 
right,  againft  all  that  any  man  can  offer  to  oppofe 
It,  unlefs,  by  their  own  fin,  they  deferve  ta  be 
cut  off. 

But  fuppofing,  (what  is  not  true)  that  none  but 
believers  are  included  in  the  covenant  of  grace  j 
even  then  it  would  appear,  that  thofe  who  are  not 
effeSiually  called  are  in  the  covenant  of  grace  : 
for  God  gives  the  charafl'er  of  beikvers,  Jainfs, 
difciptes,  c  ho  fen  people,  holy  natiofi,  dec.  to  thofe 
that  are  not  effedually  called.  See  Dent.  vii.  6. 
Ch.xxvi.  19.  j^^s  ix.  32,  41.  Ch.  viii.  12,  13,  21. 
Ch.  iv.  4.  Pf.  Ixxviii.  34.  Luk.  viii.  13.  i  Cor.  xiv. 
33*  From  thefe  and  other  icriptures,  too  many  to 
be  named,  it  appears  that  perfons  are  in  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  for  fpiritual  privileges,  who  are  not 
favingly  converted, — ^-And  indeed,  to  reflrain  the 
covenant  to  that  antinomia?i  fenfe  that  Mr,  S. 
~  ._  _  ^  _         plainly 


APPENDIX.  St 

jpkinly  reflrains  ir,  will  involve  him  in  thofe  ab^ 
ibrdities,  which  neither  he  nor  his  brethren  will 
eafily  get  rid  of. -^ What  will  tney  do  with  thofe 
covenant  breakers,  P/dl.  Ixxviii.  lo,  37  f  And 
were  not  thofe  in  covenant  wich  Godj  who  are 
threatened  with  a  curfe,  Jer.  xxxiv.  18,  19,  20  ? 
Or  what  will  they  do  with  thofe  hypocrites  that  are 
in  the  world  f  Doth  not  God  often  complain  of  hy- 
pocrites in  the  charchj  who  yet  have  lome  fort  o£ 
faithj  and  fome  of  them  the  moft  confident  of  be- 
ing faved  ?  And  arc  not  fuch  as  thefe  in  covenant 
with  God,  PfaL  Ixxviii.  8,10,  36,  37  ? — Befides  all 
this  ;  if  the  covenant  is  extended  to  none  but  thofe 
that  are  effeSfually  called^  what  can  Mr.  S.  and  his 
Anabaptiit  brethren  do  in  their  office  ?  Can  they 
certainly  know  that  every  perfon  they  lead  to  re- 
nounce their  infant- baptifm,  and  make  a  profeffion 
of  faith  and  repentancej  is  effedually  called  ?  Jcfas 
Chrift  indeed,  might  have  fiid  this  with  gertainty, 
becaufe  he  knew  what  was  in  tnan^  and  could  dif- 
tinguifh  between  real  and  vifible  Chriftians.  Eiit> 
tho'  we  may  have  a  judgment  of  difcretion  refpedl- 
ing  the  ftate  of  others,  yet  who,  except  fome  ex- 
travagant enthuiiaft,  will  pretend  to  the  infailibls 
knowledge  of  the  brethren  ? — And  if  we  can  go  no 
further  than  a  judgment  of  difcretion,  how  can  a 
faving  change  be  the  ground  upon  which  the  pri- 
vilege of  baptifm  is  granted  ?  Or  if  a  faving  change 
is  the  ground,  how  then  can  fallible  tnen  ever  bap- 
tize at  all  ?  Will  they  fay,  we  muft  ail  upon  the 
vifibility  of  their  being  in  covenant  with  God  ?  I 
join  ifTue  with  them,  and  have  proved  already,  that 
the  feed  of  vifible  believers  are  as  vifibly  in  cove- 
nant with  God  as  their  parents, 

I^  Hence 


82  APPENDIX. 

Hence  it  follows,  chat  a  perfon  may  he  under  the 
law,  as  a  covenant  of  works,  and  yet  have  a  good 
right  to  the  external  privileges  of  the  covenant  of 
grace.  It  was  obferved,  in  my  firft  Sermon,  that 
as  to  the  ftate  of  perfons,  all  are  either  renewed  or 
unrenewed,  and,  in  that  fenfe,  they  cannot  be  under 
both  covenants  at  once  ;  that  if  they  are  efFe(5tually 
called  they  are  not  under  the  law,  as  a  covenant  of 
works  ;  but  if  they  are  not  effedually  called,  they 
are  ftill  under  the  law.  But  the  antinomian  confe- 
quence  is  no  true  confequence,  'wiz.  That  an  uncon- 
verted perfon  is,  in  no  refpedts,  in  the  covenant  of 
grace  :  for  an  unconverted  perfon  may  have  as 
plain,  full,  and  revealed  right  to  the  fpiritual  privi- 
leges of  the  covenant,  as  one  that  is  effedually 
called.  If  he  is  one  of  thofe  whom  God  has  fepa- 
rated  from  the  world  to  himfelf,  he  muft  have  as 
good  a  vifible  right  to  fome  external  privileges  as 
the  beft  man  in  the  world. 

Therefdre,  what  become<5  of  the  impofjihility  of 
being  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  not  falling  from 
the  grace  of  tffedual'  calling  ?  May  not  a  perfon 
have  a  revealed  covenant  right  to  common  mercies 
and  outward  gofpcl  privileges,  and  never  be  jufli- 
jfied  before  God  by  the  perfed  righteoufnefs  of 
Chriil  -  never  be  renewed  and  fandified  by  the 
holy  Spirit  ;  and  therefore  never  be  glorified  in 
another  world?  Even  Mr.  5.  would  not  choofe 
to  fay  openly  thdt  all  he  plunges  under  water  "  will 
•'  go  to  heaven  5"  and  yet  they  are,  in  his  o- 
pinion,  the  covenant  people  of  God,  when  he  has 
prevailed  upon  them  jacrilegioiijly  to  renounce  the 
covenant  and  turn  Anabaptifls.  And  whether  thofe 
be  converts  to  his  party  will  go  to  heaven  or  hell. 


APPENDIX.  8^ 

yet  others  mny  be,  and  have  been  interefted  in 
the  covenant  of  grace,  who  (hall  never  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  glory. 

But  then  v;^e  meet  with  repeated  difficulties  pre- 
tended about  yidam,  j^bel,  Enoch  and  others,  (as 
many  as  you  pleafe)  before  Abraham'^  day,  that 

^vere  favingly  converted. And   will  the  reader 

allow  tr.e,  on  this  occafion,  to  ufe  the  words  of  my 
learned  antagonift  ?  Then  I  fhould  fay,  it  is  mere 
noije  without  fubjiance.  For  God  brought  Adam^ 
Abel^  and  Enochs  under  the  covenant  of  grace,  in 
both  its  parts.  The  fame  covenant  was  made  with 
them,  that  was  made  with  Abraham^  tho'  it  was 
not  fealed  by  circumcifion.  Circumcifion  was 
bottomed  upon  the  command  of  God  5  /.  e.  If  there 
had  been  no  command  for  it,  no  man  might  have 
figned  the  covenant  with  fuch  a  feal  j  but  the  com- 
mand had  relation  to  the  covenant  which  was  not 
fealed  before.  All  thofe,  before  Abraham^  that 
were  efFedually  called,  and  fo  were  intereftedin^^?//? 
parts  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  are  doutblefs  round 
about  the  throne,  ^*  faying  with  a  loud  voice,  worthy 
<*  is  the  Lamb  that  was  flain,  to  receive  power,  and 
*'  riches,  and  honour,  and  glory,  and  bleffing."  * 

After  Mr.  S.  has  fpent  about  a  page  together 
(befides  the  general  tendency  of  the  moft  of  his 
pamphlet)  to  mifinform  his  readers  about  the  co- 
venant of  grace,  he  returns  back  to  the  member- 

(hip 


*  That  1  might  not  render  my  Appendix  extreme  lengthy,  I 
do  but  hint  at  things.  But  if  God  fhould  ipare  and  enable 
me,  I  am  willing,  vipon  proper  encouragement,  to  publilh  n^y 
thoughts  mo7;e  largely,  as  I  have  lately  had  a  call  to  open  Uigio. 
to  my  own  peopi?. 


84         APPENDIX. 

fhip  of  children  ;  and,  with  the  help  of  Mr.  MGrZ 
gariy  injudicioully,  tho*  very  warmly,  argues  in  tha 
following  manner,  'viz.  ^'  That  law  which  gave  be-^ 
*'  ing  to  infant  memberfliip  and  circumciiion,  isa-^ 
*'  bolifhcd  by  divine  authority,  as  part  of  the  form- 
*'  er  adminiilration.  This  (fays  he)  muft  be 
*'  granted,  or  elfe  circumciiion  is  yet  in  force.'* 
But  he  has  proved  neither  that  the  law  which  gave 
being  to  infant  memberlliip  is  abolifoed  ;  nor^  that 
circumciiion  muft  be  in  force,  provided  the  law 
which  gave  being  to  infant  membership  is  not  a- 
boliihed  ;  unlcfs  the  important  word  methinh^ 
will  prove  it.  Perhaps  he  did  not  expe<fl  his  read- 
ers would  fee  that  the  law  of  church  memberiliip 
was  one  thing,  and  the  initiating  feal  is  another. 
The  fubjeds  are  the  fame  that  they  were  under  the 
former  difpenfiition  of  the  covenant,  tho*  the  feai 
of  indudion  is  changed  from  circumciiion  to  bap- 
lifm.  The  abolition  of  circumciiion  as  a  type,  did 
Slot  aboliih  the  initiating  feal  of  the  covenant,  nor 
caft  the  children  of  believing  parents  out  of  the  co-s 
venant,  As  they  were  taken  into  covenant  by  a 
law,  that  has  never  been  repealed,  fo  they  muft  be 
iigned  or  maiked  out  for  the  Lord,  as  members  of 
his  family,  or  fubjeds  of  his  kingdom  :  for,  ever 
iince  God  took  a  people  to  himfelf  out  of  the  loins 
of  Jihrtiham^  he  has  appointed  a  feal,  and  ordered 
the  time  of  its  adminiftration.  "  A  man  that  hath 
^*  a  grant  from  king  or  ftate,  hath  iffo  faSio  right 
**  to  the  feal ;  and  the  right  neceifarily  follows  up- 
*'  on  the  grant,  tho'  he  muft  ftay  till  a  fealing  day 
l^  before  he  poffefs  it," 

His  next  attempt,  which  is  from  Heb,  viii.  8,  ^.' 
|pd  ^er,  xxxi,  is  as  little  to  his  purpofe.^— What 


APPENDIX.  85 

if  the  mofaick  difpenfation,  with  all  its  rites,  cere* 
jnonieSj  and  inftitutions,  is  now  fet  afide  ?  This 
will  give  no  evidence  at  all,  that  the  children  of 
believing  parents  are  cafl  out  of  covenant.  The 
Apoftle  calls  it  *'  a  fiew  covenant,  in  that  he  hath 
**  made  the  firft  old.'''  But  this  cannot  refer  to 
the  covenant  of  grace  and  the  covenant  oi  works ; 
or  to  iwo  dijUnB  covenants ;  for  then  it  would 
follow,  in  the  jormer  cafe,  that  there  was  no  co- 
venant of  grace  revealed  to  men  before  the  new- 
teftament  difpenfation;  and  in  the  latter^  that  all, 
in  the  new-teftament  times,  who  enter  into  cov-e- 
nant,  do  keep  covenant  ;  but  all  in  old-teflament 
times  were  covenant-breakers.  But  the  contrary 
10  both  thefe  things  are  evidently  true.  There 
were  fome  that  kept  covenant  in  old-teflament 
times,  Fjal.  xliv.  17.  and  ciii.  17,  and  there  are 
fome  covenant- breakers  under  the  prefent  difpen- 
fation of  the  covenant,  i  T^im.  v.  12.  The  lavr 
was  written  in  mens  hearts  under  the  former  dif- 
penlation,  Deut,  xxx.  6.  Ifai,  Iv.  3.  Hence,  the 
oldnefi  that  is  aboliflied  is  only  in  ^ircumftances^ 
wherewith  the  covenant  of  grace  was  then  clothed, 

•< Both  the  old  and  new  covenant  are  fubftanti^ 

■ally  one,  and  the  fime  covenant:  Chrift  is  the  me- 
diator of  both,  tbowgh  in  the  former  he  was  ty- 
pified by  Mojes.  Both  have  one  and  the  fime 
teims  on  Chrid's  part,  forgivenefs  of  fins  and  c-» 
tcrnal  life.  Both  are  one  and  the  fame  on  man's 
part:  "  the  jufl.  lived  by  faith  under  the  former 
difpenfation;"  and  under  the  new  difpenfation,  it 
is  ^*  whofoever  believeth  in  him  (hall  receive  the 
remiflion  of  iins/' — Both  are  one  and  the  fame 
church  of  Chrifl,  Matt,s\\\.  11.  Their  faith 
terminated  qb  one  and  the  fame  objed,  "Job,  viii. 


86  APPENDIX. 

56.  1  Cor.  X.  3,  4. — And  thefe  identities  manlfeft 
that  the  church  is  the  fame  under  both  difpenlati- 
ons.  The  fame  kingdom  which  the  Jews  pof- 
feffed  ;  the  fame  privileges  which  they  enjoyed  as 
thg  peculiar  people  of  God,  were  taken  from  them 
and  given  to  the  Gentiles^  Matt.  xxi.  43. — Now, 
if  the  Mediator  be  the  fame  ;  the  terms  on  both 
fides  the  fame  j  then  the  covenant  is  the  fame  ; 
the  o/f/ covenant  which  the  Jews  entered  into,  and 
the  new  covenant  which    Chriftians  enter  into, 

is  one  and  the  fame  covenant. 'Tis  granted  ; 

the  covenant  of  grace,  under  its  prefent  difpen- 
fation,  is  called  a  new  covenant  :  but  it  cannot 
be  becaufe  it  is  not  fubflantially  the  fame  with  the 
former,  fince  the  terms  of  both  are  the  fame;  but 
it  is  becaufe,  fince  it  is  held  forth  by  Jefus  Chrifl:, 
no  nation  is  debarred  from  entering  into  it:  there 
is  a  change  of  ordinances,  and  it  is  now  confecra- 
ted  by  the  blood  of  Chiift,  It  is  alfo  new,  be- 
caufe the  light,  liberty,  and  grace  contained  there- 
in, are  more  clearly,  comfortably,  exprefslv  and 
abundantly  promifed  in  this,  than  in  the  former 
difpenfation  of  it ;  and  becaufe  of  the  more  fpiri- 
tual  ordinances  of  worfhip  that  are  contained  in 

this,    than  were  in  the  former  difpenfation. ^ 

And  what  of  all  this  ?  Doth  it  follow  that  the 
covenant  is  not  the  fame  ?  No.  You  might  as 
well  argue,  that  the  law  of  love  was  not  the  fame 
law  to  God's  people  of  old,  as  to  his  people  un- 
der the  gofpel,  becaufe  it  is  now  called  a  new  com^ 
mandment.  Whereas,  there  was  the  fame  law, 
commanding  love  one  to  another,  under  the  yeiM- 
ijh^  as  there  is  under  the  chriftian  difpenfation. 
This  law  of  love  is  fully  contained  in  the  Deca-^ 

kgue,  and  other  parts  of  the  Old  leji anient. ^ 

But 


APPENDIX,  87 

But  it  IS  called  a  new  commandment,  becaufe  it  is 
enjoined  by  a  new  example,  and  with  new  expla- 
nations, motives  and  enforcements.  So,  the  co- 
venant of  grace,  under  the  former  difpenfation, 
was  clothed  with  darknefs  and  terror,  agreeable 
to  that  legal  ftatej  and  was  not  found  fault lefsy 
or  without  defc6t ;  /.  e.  it  was  lefs  perfect,  than 
what  was  to  fucceed ;  or,  it  was  im  per  fed:  com- 
pared  with  the  prefent  difpenfation  :  and,  in  dif- 
tindion  from  it,  the  prefent  is  a  clear,  dilincum- 
bered,  fpiritual,  and  glorious  difpenfation ;  or  a 
glorious  edition  and  enlargement  of  the  fame  co- 
venant ;  and  therefore  it  is  called  new. — Hence, 
Mr.  S.  with  the  afTiftance  of  Mr.  Morgan^  has 
done  nothing  to  his  purpofe,  unlefs  he  defigned  to 
work  himfelf  up  into  the  clouds,  and  amufe  his 
readers  with  darknefs.  For  he  has  done  nothing 
to  invalidate  the  evidence  that  I  have  offered,  pro- 
ving that  the  Abrahamick  covenant  is  the  cove- 
nant of  grace. 

Nor  doth  what  he  offers,  P.  16.  againft  the  ^- 
*oerla[tingne]s  of  it,  argue  any  thing  to  his  purpofe. 
For,  altho'  the  word  everlafiing  is  not  always  to 
be  taken  ftridly  j  yet  when  the  covenant  of  grace 
is  the  fubje(5t  in  queftion,  it  always  fignifies  a  per^ 
petual  continuance.  Tho'  many  circumftances  in 
the  adminiflration  may  be  altered,  yet  the  cove- 
nant itfeif  is  lafling  in  all  its  fpiritual  privileges ; 
and  its  efficacious  promile*  reach  thro*  all  periods 
of  time  :  yea,  everlafiing  life  is  promifed  in  it ; 
and  it  is  of  eternal  efficacy  ;  for  the  glory  and  re- 
ward, which  the  great  Head  of  the  covenant 
has  purchafed  for  all  that  are,  or  fliall  be  effedlu- 
ally  called,  is  an  eternal  weight  of  glor)\ 

^       -       -  <Again> 


88         APPENDIX. 

Again  ;  Mr.  *S.  fays  1  have  intimated  that  the 
'j^hrahamick  covenant  is  a  pure  covenant  of  grace* 
This  he  faid  of  me,  not  becaufe  I  called  it  a  pure 
covenant,  but,  I  fuppofc,  it  was  to  draw  out  my 
fenciments,  that  fo  he  might,  in  his  next,  draw  out 
all  the  force  he  can  rally  from  his  party  againft  me* 
And  confidering  he  may  be  ftraitened  for  matter  to 
make  out  another  pamphlet,  I  am  willing  to  affirm 
•what  is  really  an  important  truth  upon  this  head^ 
though  I  had  no  need  to  do  it  for  the  vindication  of 
my  arguments  againfl  his  exceptions.  Therefore  I 
donowaflert  that  the  Abrahamick  covenant  ii  <t 
fure  covenant  (^f  grace.  For,  if  it  is  not  pure,  but 
mlxt  as  the  Anabaptifts  (to  help  themfelves  againft 
infant  baptifm)  haveafferted,  then  it  is  a  compound 
of  pure  and  impure  ;  /.  e.  fome  of  its  ingredients  are 
fuch  as  they  fhould  be,  and  others  are  adulter  at  e^, 
Like  the  falfe  teachers  dod:rine  in  Paul's  day, 
whom  he  oppofed  as  perverters  of  the  puregofpel 
df  Chrift  :  or  like  the  Antinomians^  againft  whom 
yames  wrote,  for  their  making  high  pretenfions 
to  faith  in  Chrift  for  juftification,  without  any 
proof  of  its  fincerity  by  fruitfulnefs  in  good  works* 
feoth  thefe  forts  of  hypocrites  held  to  fome  reveal- 
ed truths,  but  they  mixed  them  with  others  that 
were  corrupt,  and  fo  fpoiled  the  whole. — I  hope 
Mr.  S.  will  not  fay,  in  his  anfwcr,  that  the  gof- 
pel  which  Paul  tells  us  was  preached  to  Abraham^ 
was  an  Arminian  or  an  Antinomian  gofpel.  This, 
befure,  would  make  the  Ahrahamick  covenant  im-* 

pure  enough. Or  is  it  impure,   becaufe  it  had 

promifes  referring  not  only  to  eternal  bleflednefs, 
but  to  temporal  good  >  But  are  we  not  under  fuch 
a  gofpel  in  thefe  days  alfo  ?  If  there  is  no  pro- 
inife  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  refpedting  tempo- 


APPENDIX.  89 

fat  good,  how  will  Mr*  5*.  pray,  in  faith,  for  his 
daily  bread  ?  Or,  what  vvillhe  fay  to  thofe  pro- 
tnifes,  Pfal.  xxxvii*  3.  andy^iii.  S.  Matt.  vi.  25-^- 
30.  befides  an  hundred  other  promiles  refpeding 
the  life  that  now  is  ?  Can  a  btiliever  be  in  any  re- 
lation or  cirGLimftancc  of  life,  and  have  no  gofpel 
promile  fuited  to  his  cafe  ? — Tho*  the  moll  emi- 
nent promifes  in  the  Abrahamick  covenant  refpedt 
eternal  life,  yet  there  are  great  and  precious  pro- 
mifes in  that  covenant  refpeding  the  life  that  7701^^ 
is^  both  under  the  former  and  prejent  difpenfation 
of  it* 

Aftef  ttiany  violent  aiTaults  of  his  own,  with 
the  afliflance  of  feveral  not  fo  noted  as  himfelf,  he 
tries  the  virtue  of  Dr.  GiWs  arguments.  And  the 
AnabaptiJVs  in  our  land,  fo  far  as  I  have  had  op- 
portunity to  obferve,  feem  to  think  whatever  that 
Jearned  writer  fays,  muft  be  true  5  and  his  ipfe 
dixit  is  full  proof  of  it.  By  hearing  him  referred 
to,  and  often  quoted  as  if  it  ou^tio  put  an  end  to 
all  JlrifCi  minded  me  of  the  two  following  lines^ 

^i  fpmigif  facros,  aiiro^  *Oel  marmore  'Vuitus 
hlon  facit  ilk  deos  -,  qui  rogat^  ilk  facitk 

If  Mr.  S.  quotes  Dr.  Gill  truly,  he  tells  us  fromi 
Rom.YA.  16,  17.  "  that  by  the  Jirft  fruits^"  is 
meant  "  the  firft  converts  among  the  Jews  un- 
*'  der  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  ^f." — But,  if  Mr. 
S.  thinks  Dr.  G/7/'s  name  (hould  ftand  for  evidence, 
I  hope  Dr.  Gilt  will  not  expect  that  every  one  can 
fliut  their  eyes  againft  the  light,  in  complaifance 
to  his  name.— ^Let  us  rather  conlider  the  plain  and 

M  iamiliar 


90  APPENDIX.         • 

familiar  fenfe  of  what  the  Apoftle  has  wrote  ifl 
the  text  referred  to. — To  take  down  the  pride  of 
the  Gentiles^  and  their  infults  over  the  Jews,   the 
jApoftle  fhowSj  in  the  i  ith  verfcj  that  the  whole 
body  ot  iht  JewSy   as  a  nation,    were  not  cut  off 
from  their  vifible  church  privileges,   irrecoverably 
and  for  ever.      But  their  rejecting  Chrill  fcould 
be  over^ruled,  for  fpreading  the  gofpel  fo  much 
the  fooner  among  the  Ge?2tiles :  and  the  reception 
which  it  met  with  among  the  Gentiles,  was  ordered 
to  be  a  means  of  trial  to  the  Jews,  for  exciting  them 
to  go  beyond  the  Gentiles  in  faith  and  obedience. 
— And,  verfe  12.  if  the  falling  of  the  Jews  fvom 
God's  covenant,    be  made  an  occafion  of  the  in- 
riching  the  Gentiles ;    how  much  greater  acceffion 
of  the  Gentiles  will  there  be  into  a  vifible  church- 
ftate,  when  the  Jewijh  nation,  in  general,  fhall 
be  called  into  a  vifible  church-ftate  again, — Upon 
this  he  falls  into  a  difcourfe  about  his  great  concern 
for  the  JewSy  and  their  being  ingrafted  again  into 
a  vifible  church-ftate,    and  into  the  way  of  falva* 
tion  by  Chriftj  and  fpeaks  of  the  wonderful  effed: 
their  reception  into  covenant  will  have  upon  the 
Gentiles,  who,  till  that  time,  will  remdn  dead  in 
trefpaffes  and  fins. — Then  comes  in  the  texl  Mr, 
S.  refers  to  :    "  If  the  jirft  fruits  be  holy,    the 
*^  lump  is  alfo  holy  :    and  if  the  root  be  holy,  fo 
"  are  the  branches."      ^ he  Jirft  fruits,    Siud  the 
root,  doubtlefs  fignify,  Abraham,   Jfaac,  and  Ja^ 
cob,   with  the  reft  of  the  patriarchs-,    but  efpeci- 
ally  "  Abraham,    with  whom  the  covenant  was 
"   made  as  the  root  of  that  nation,  from  whom  the 
"  whole  nation  fprung,  and  by  whom  it  was  con- 
"  fecrated  to  God,  as  the  offering  of  the  firfl:  fruits 
".  fandified  the  whole  produ(a  of  the  harveft,  and 
"  «'  the 


APPENDIX.  91 

*'  the  offering  of  a  cake,  or  of  two  loaves,  fanc- 
*'  tified  the  whole  lump  of  dough,"  Levit.  xxiii. 
10 — 17.    and  Numb,  xv.   19,  20,  21.      So  Abra- 
ham  was  viiibly  feparated  to  God,  and  became  fe- 
derally holy  by  that  everlajiifig  covenant^  ivhich  he 
eftablified  with  him^  to  be  a  God  to  hitn,  and  to  his 
feed  after  him.      Hence,   if  Abraham,    who  was 
the  root  of  adminiilration  to  the  Jewijh  church, 
;n  the  line  of  Ifaac  and  yacob ;   if  they  were  fede- 
rally holy,  as  he  was  their  covenant  father,    then 
there  is  reafon  to  hope,  tho*  they  are  now  broken 
off  by  unbelief,  that  they  will  be  brought  in,  to 
the  faith  and  all  the  privileges  of  a  church-ftdte  a- 
gain,    to  join  with  thofe  that  were  grafted  in  by 
incifion,  when  the  natural  branches  were  broken 
off. — Mr.  S.  may  coniider,   if  he  thinks  it  worth 
his  while,    whether  leprefenting  the  firft  fruits^ 
the  firft  JewiJJo  converts,  under  the  prefent  difpenr- 
fation  of  the  covenant,  is  not  a  falfe  interpretation 
of  the  text  ?     Whether  the  fimilitude  taken  from 
the  ceremonial  law,   concerning  the  jirji  fruit i, 
and  that  from  the  law  of  nature,    concerning  the 
root,  is  not  the  fame  ?     And  whether  the  holinefs 
of  the  lump,  and  of  the  branches,  doth  not  refpeit 
the  holinefs  of  the  fews,    in  their  ancient  cove- 
nant relation  to  God,  as  an  holy  people  ?— If  this 
is  not  true,    how  could  the  Apoftle  fay,  verle  17. 
fome  of  the  branches  were  broken  ofj't      Do'h  rot 
this  refer  to  thofe  fews,    who  were  cut  off  from 
their  covevant  claim  ? — And  if  fo,  then  the  graft- 
ing in,  muft  refpedl  the  Gentiles,   who  had  been 
fir  angers  to  the  covenant  of  grace,  and,  like  the 
branches  of  a  wild  olive-treCj  were  ufclels  and  un- 
profitable ;  but  are  now  fet  in  the  place  of  thofe  that 
were  broken  off,  among  the  remnant  of  the  fe'ms 
that  were  not  broken  off,  as  I  have  confidered  un- 
der 


92  APPENDIX. 

der  the  3^  head  of  my  firft  argument,  to  which  t 
refer  the  reader.— But,  fays  Mr.  6\  (P.  17.)  *'  the 
*'  root  and  fatnefs,  which  they  partook  of,  are  not 
^'  the  privileges  of  the  Jewijh  church ;  but  the  pri- 
*'  vileges  of  the  new-teflament  church»  of  which 
**  Chrifl  is  the  root  and  foundation-flone." 
Fray,  Mr,  S.  who  fuppofes  that  Chrifl  is  not  the 
roo.  and  foundation  of  the  church,  in  the  moft 
important  fenfe  ?  It  has  been  exprefsly  granted 
that  he  is  the  root  of  communication  to  the  church, 
under  the  prefent  difpenfation  of  the  covenant  of 
grace.  He  has  purchafed  all  the  bleffings  of  time 
and  eternity ;  the  food  we  eat  and  the  raiment  we 
put  on  :  and  not  only  all  temporal,  but  all  fpiri- 
tual  and  eternal  bleffings :  and  as  Head  and  Lord 
of  all,  he  communicates  thefe  bleffings  -r- — And 
"was  not  Chrifl:  the  root  of  communication  to  the 
church,  under  the  former  dilpenfation  of  the  co^ 
venant,  in  the  fame  fenfe  that  he  is  now  ?  Did 
not  God  the  Father  accept  of  his  engagement  as 
fully ^  as  if  he  had  been  actually  incarnate  ?  Was 
not  he  fet  up,  and  accepted,  and  conftituted  Head 
over  all  things  from  everlafting  ?  Was  he  not  as 
truly  the  foundation  of  the  JewiJI)^  as  of  the  chrif- 
tian  church  ?  If  not,  how  could  the  covenant  be 
primarily  made  with  him,  as  the  Mediator,  Head 
and  Surety  of  it  ? — ■ — But,  this  hinders  not  bu^ 
Abraham  was  the  root  of  adminijiration  to  the 
yewijh  church  and  nation,  as  their  federal  father; 
and  therefore  the  branches  were  relatively  holy  by 
the  confl:itution  of  that  covenant,  which  was  made 
with  him  and  his  feed.  And  real  faints  were  as 
iively  JloneSj  built  up  a  fpiritual  houfe,  upon  Jefus 
Chrifl  the  fure  foundation,  in  the  yewijh  as  well 
^s  the  chriftjan  church,- — But,  doth  it  follow  fropi 

thence, 


APPENDIX.         9j 

thence,  (as  Mr.  S,  argues)  that  the  prerequifite  to 
the  initiating  feal  of  the  covenant  is  faith,  either  un- 
der the  former  or  the  prefent  difpenfation  of  the  co- 
venant?— Faith,  indeed,  or  the  profellion  of  it,  is  a 
prerequifite  in  the  adult,  and  fo  jc  was  of  old :  but 
it  is  eafy  for  any  honelf  man  to  fee,  that  infants  may 
be  as  proper  materials  for  the  chriftian  as  for  the 
^eiififk  church.  And  to  what  purpole  do.s  Mr, 
S*.  bring  the  text  of  Uvely  ftones'i  Does  he  thiiik 
that  real  faints  were  not  as  lively  l^ones,  under  the 
former  difpenfation  of  the  covenant,  as  now,  tho* 
the  pomp  and  grandeur  of  their  temple  was  of 
dead  materials  ?  Or  would  he  thereby  infinuate 
into  weak  minds,  that  the  merciful  grant  of  church 
memberfhip  which  was  made  to  children  former- 
ly, is  now  repealed  ?  Perhaps  his  performance 
will  meet  with  no  reader  fo  penetrating  as  to  fee 
the  text  referred  to  will  prove  a  repeal.  And, 
without  boalling,  he  may  be  challenged  to  biing 
any  text  in  the  Bible,  or  any  fair  and  jull  iiiference 
from  one,  that  will  prove  a  repeal.- — -Now,  if 
he  has  not  proved  a  repeal,  he  has  proved  nothing 
againfl  my  argument.  And  if  there  is  no  repeal 
of  the  merciful  grant,  then  the  favour  belongs  to 
the  children  Hill,  and  they  cannot  be  debarred 
without  facrilegioufly  keeping  back  Vv'hat  God 
claims  as  his.  To  refufe  the  feal  of  baptifia 
to  the  feed  of  believers,  is  to  rob  God  of  what  he 

has  appropriated  to  himfelf. ^Therefore  I  do 

humbly  entreat  ail  thofe  that  love  and  fear  God, 
and  have  opportunity  and  ability  to  fearch  after  the 
truth  without  prejudice,  to  confider  whether  a 
Ipirit  of  enthiifiafm  or  felf-fulnefs  has  not  drawn 
them  afide,  if  they  are  already  carried  off  frotn 
9Wr  fcriptur^  doctrine  of  infant-baptilm  ?  ChlK 
'"  "  artii 


94         APPENDIX. 

drcn  of  believers  muft  have  the  token  of  the  co-» 
venant  put  upon  them,  in  the  right  of  their  pa- 
rents faith,  in  obedience  to  a  command  that  never 
has  been  repealed. A  profeffion  of  faith  is  re- 
quired of  none  but  the  adult,  before  they  receive 
the  token  of  the  covenant. 

The  next    affault  is  upon  my    2d  argument, 
where  I  afferted  that  the  infants  of  believers  are 

dijcipks  of  Chrift.— From  this,  after  Mr.  S,  has 

quoted  LuL  xiv.  26 — 33.  he  takes  a  perfcdt  ram- 
ble for  about  a  page  and  a  half.  This  put  me  in 
mind  of  the  preachments  of  run-about  exhorters  j 
or  rather  of  T.^om  Puzzle  in  the  Trailer,  who  made 
a  great  blufter,  nothing  to  his  purpofe.  But  after 
he  defcended  from  the  clouds,  his  ekctrick  iirc 
catch'd  upon  Mr.  Stennet  ;  and  by  his  affiftance, 
he  endeavours  to  prove  [Page  20,  21.)  that  none 
can  be  difciples  without  being  Jirji  taught  3  and 
that  teaching  preceeds  baptifm. 

)  ;To  this  I  anfwer,  i.  Mr.  Stennet  has  well  obfer- 
ved  that  fuch  teaching  as  producetb/<:z//y6  in  Chrift^ 
and  fubjeUion  to  his  gofpel^  is  necefTary  to  produce 
the  good  effeds  fpoken  oi  Liik.  xiv.  26,  &c.  None 
but  thofe  that  are  el^edually  called  will  faithfully 
difcharge  the  duty  of  difciples.  Yet,  2.  the  term 
difciple  is  the  fame  with  jcholar  ;  and  to  dijciple^  is 
to  enter  into  a  fchool  for  being  trained  up  accord- 
ing to  the  laws  and  rules  of  the  mafler  of  that 
fchool.  See  Mat.  xxviii.  19.  Go  Teach  all  naii" 
om.  Greek,  Matheteusate /^^/"^  ta  ethne. 
Introduce  the  nations  of  the  earth,  Gentiles  as  well 
as  Jews,  into  my  kingdom,  as  fchobrs  into  my 
fchool,  by  a  facred  rite  of  my  own  appointment  — 


APPENDIX.  9^ 

Mr.  Sfennet  challenges  us  to  produce  an  inflance  of 
any  that  were  difciples  before  they  were  taught. 
And  I  did  produce  inftances,  in  my  2d  argument, 
which  Mr.  S,  has  wifely  declined  offering  one  word 
of  evidence  to  prove  that  they  were  not  true.  And 
indeed,  neither  he,  nor  any  other  perfon  C2iuju/tly 
doubt,  whether  the  yoke  fpoken  of  Auis  xv.   was 
circumcidon  or  not  ?  And  if  it  was  circumcifion, 
then  infants  are  included  among  the  difciples.  That 
which  is  done  to  infants,  is  done  to  difciples,  and 
therefore  they  are  difciples,  as  I  have  proved  in  my 
firft  Sermon. — Yet,  it  may  be  added  ;  perfons  may 
be,  and  have  been  difciples  without  real  fubje-ftion 
to  Chrill:.  y«^i7i  was  a  difciple  :  all  that  5<zm/ could 
find  of  that  wav,  were  dilciples,  and  many  of  the 
yews  were  difciples,  that  turned  away,  and  walk- 
ed no  more  with  him.     And  Chrift  himfelf  has 
taught   us  that   infants  are  difciples.  Mat,  x.  42. 
Mark  ix.  41.   Mat.  xviii.  5.-— Belides  ;  for  any  to 
deny  that  infants  v/ere  included  in  our  Saviour's 
commiffion  to  dijciple  all   nations,  would  involve 
the  apoltles  and  their  fucceflfors  in  the  miniftry, 
in  a  contradidtion  :  for  nations  are  to  be  difcipled  ; 
and  infants  are  a  part  of  every  nation. — Tho'  none 
will  go  to  heaven,  bat  fuch  as  have  the  fpirit  of 
martyrdom,  yet  whole  nations  may  be  difciples  of 
Chrift.  If  they  are  entered  into  his  fchool ;  if  they 
are  put  in  the  way  of  falvation,  and  put  into  the  en- 
joyment of  fpiritual  privileges,  they  are  difciples. 

Mr.  iS.  to  help  his  weak  caufe,  "  twifts  and 
turns"  many  ways  againft  this  argument.  He  tells 
his  readers  {Page  22.)  that  our  Saviour  in  Mark 
xvi.  16.  has  {hewed  "  the  exacft  order  which  is  to 
*'  be  obferved,— firft  ^r£'^fj6/^?j"j  then  believing^  then 

haptvzing:\ 


5)6         APPENDIX. 

haptizing.*'  And  fo,  in  effed,  he  charges  me  witli 
inverting  the  order  which  ChriO:  has  eftablifhed.— - 
To  this  it  may,  perhaps,  be  faiisfying  to  Mr.  S.  if 
I  tell  him  that  Dr.  Gtlly  in  his  antinomian  Ser- 
jnon  open  eternal  Juflificatlon,  tells  me,  "  the  or- 
*'  der  of  things  is  frequently  inverted  in  Scripture* 
*'  — It  does  not  always  obferve  that  firft  which  is 
"  firft  5  and  that  laft  which  is  lad  ?  but  changes 
**  the  order;  fo  that  nothing  ftridtly  is  to  be  con- 
**  eluded  from  thence."— But  I  add  further  ;  thai 
if  Mr.  5.  defigned  to  prove  from  that  text,  that 
infants  may  not  be  baptized,  becaufe  they  can'l 
beheve,  why  has  he  not  fpoke  it  out  in  fo  many 
words  ?  Did  he  forefee  the  evili  and  hide  himfelt  ? 
Surely  he  might  have  leen,  that  it  would  as  necef- 
farily  follow,  that  when  they  can't  believe,  they 
muft  be  damned. — That  which  will  re- 
ceive infants  into  heaven,  will  receive  them  into 
the  viiible  church  by  baptifm* 

I  confefs,  It  appears  flrange,  that  a  Gentleman^* 
who  pretends  to  be  far  above  a  jmatterer  in  Greeks 
fhould  boggle  and  try  to  blunder  his  readers  about 
the  commiffion  Chrift  gave  his  minifters.  For  it  is 
evident,  from  that  commifion,  that  the  firft  work 
they  had  to  do,  was  to  profelyfe  or  admit  all  nati- 
ons into  the  fchool  of  Chrift,  baptizing  and  teach- 
ingihtxn,  **  And  when  parents  gave  in  their  names 
to  Chrift  for  themfelves,  and  their  families,  their 
whole  houfe  were  difcipled,  or  admitted  into  his 
fchool.  Among  the  Jews,  being  difcipled  was 
not  being  firft  taught,  and  then  initiated  to  a  maf^ 
ter  ;  but  they  were  initiated  to  a  mafter,  and  then 
taught.  So  all  ifrael  was  baptized  into  Mojes^  i 
Cor,  X.   not  as  already  taught,  but  to  be  inftrud^ 


APPENDIX.        97 

cd  and  guided  by  him  for  the  future,"  Nor  can  it 
reafonably  be  fuppofed  butthe  apoftle?;,  who  were 
JewSy  mull:  needs  underiland  the  comaiiirion  in 
the  fame  latitude  that  they  had  been  aceuftomed  to^ 
They  had  all  along  **  feen,  that  in  all  covenant 
tranfadtions  betwixt  God  and  his  church,  the  in^- 
fants  of  believers  had  always  been  admitted,  toge- 
ther with  their  parents,  and  pafTed  under  the  fame 
initiating  rite."  They  alfo  knew  this  their  admlffiori 
was  a  great  privilege  :  they  alfo  knew  that  all  na- 
tions were  foon  to  partake  of  all  the  privileges  of 
the  church  j  to  be  grafted  into  the  fame  olive-tree^ 
and  to  be  joint-heirs  with  them  of  all  their  religi- 
ous grants.  They  alfo  knew  it  to  be  the  pradice 
of  the  church,  that  when  a  Gentile  was  profelyted 
to  the  v\  orfliip  of  the  God  of  Ifraely  not  only  he 
was  baptizcdj  but  all  his  infant  feed."  How  there- 
jFore  was  it  morally  poffiblCj  how  couW  it  confifl: 
with  reafon  for  them  to  think  but  they  muft  in  the 
profecution  of  their  commiffionj  go  and  pra(5life  in 
all  things  as  formerly^  where  Jefus  Chrift  himfelf 
had  not  made  a  difference  ^ — Gould  they  imagine 
that  infants^  who  had  been  airways  enrolled  in  the 
lift  of  difcipleSj  lliould  now  be  excluded,  without 
one  word  offered  by  their  Mafler  to  exclude  them  ? 
Let  Mr.  S.  fhew  in  his  next,  where  Chrift  has 
fhut  them  out  of  this  privilege  ;  or  by  what  pro- 
hibition he  has  forbid  their  enjoying  the  merciful 
grant  made  them,  any  longer:  or  elfe  let  him^ 
like  an  honefl  man,  confefs  that  they  are  no  where 
debarr'd  3  for  he  mufl,  either  prove  that  they  are 
excluded,  or  mufl  allow  them  the  chriflian  rite  of 
baptifm,  orelfe,  armis  pollentior  ajlusk 

In  the  next  place  Mr.  S,  falls  upon  my  3 Jar-*' 
N  gument^' 


98        APPENDIX. 

gumente  And^  i.  He  denies  that  federal  holinefs 
givrs  a  right  to  baptifm  j  (fee  Fage  23.)  and  gives 
this  wonderful  reafon  for  it,  in%.  not  federal  holi- 
ntfs  but  a  "  profefTion  of  faith/'  gives  a  right.-— 
If  he  has  any  meaning  to  this,  belides  keeping  the 
mafk  which  he  has  taken  to  himfelf,  it  mufl:  be, 
that  thofe  who  appear  to  be  in  covenant  with  God 
are  the  fubjeds  of  baptifm,  and  no  others  :  for 
what  is  to  be  underftood  by  a  profeffion  of  faith, 
but  a  profeffion  of  a  covenant  intereft  in  Chrifl  ? 
—Now,  there  is,  at  leaft^  as  good  evidence 
that  the  infants  of  believers  are  in  covenant,  as 
that  any  who  profefs  faith  and  repentance  arc  fb. 
I  mean  here,  that  we  have  as  good  reafon  to  think 
they  are  regenerate,  as  to  believe  it  of  thofe  who 
fay  they  are  converted  :  for  we  have  proved  that 
God  has  taken  them  into  covenant  'vijibly  j  and  he 
has  alfo  made  many  great  and  precious  promifcs  to 
them. — —But  Mr.  5.  feems  jealous  that  what  he 
has  offered  of  a  profeffion  of  faith  giving  a  right  X.6 
baptifm  will  hardly  ferve  his  purpofe  3  and  there- 
fore he  hurries  from  that,  and  fays  "  it  is  only  the 
**  command  of  God  that  gives  a  right  to  an  ordi- 
nance of  God  5"  /.  e.  (as  he  has  explained  it)  no 
tnan  has  a  right  to  inftitute  any  ordinance  as  a  figtt 
cr  feal  of  the  covenant  ;  nor  may  any  man  pretend 
to  obfei  ve  any  rite  as  an  ordinance,  before  God 
himfelf  has  appointed  it.     See  to  this  effect  Fage 

23,  24. He  might  as  well  have  faid,  that  no 

perfon  bus  a  right  to  that  which  has  no  exiftencCr 
And  I  am  willing  he  fhould  exult  in  all  the  tri^ 
Tumph,  which  that  arguing  can  poffibly  give  him.— 
Mv  argument  fuppofes  an  ordinance  of  God  ;  that 
this  ordinance  is  the  initiating  token  of  the  cove- 
nant.     And  if  Mr.  3,  has  done  nothing  to  in- 

validate 


APPENDIX.         ^^ 

Validate  the  major  propofition,  befides  what  I  have 
obferved,  it  will  only  fervc  to  fliow  his  readers^ 
that  he  has  more  ufe  for  the  mafk,  than,  perhaps, 
he  himfelf  is  aware  of.  And  indeed,  conlidering 
his  principles  ftand  in  more  need  of  it  than  any 
denomination  of  Proteftants  that  I  ever  met  with, 
it  is  no  wonder  he  fcrabbles  fp  earneflly  af-^ 
jer  it.- -But 

He  foon  comes  to  a  common  objcdlion,  and  calls 
jn  the  help  of  his  brethren.— It  is  again  ft  the  minor 
propofition  in  my  argument,  *viz.  "  The  infants  of 
vifible  believers  are  federally  holy."  i  Cc^*.  vii.  14. 
And,  tho'  he  has  fummoned  many  witneffes  to 
help  his  c^ufe,  he  can't  fiipport  fallhood  by  them. 
He  might,  with  more  propriety,  have  called  in 
Richard  ^tapleton,  a  zealous  and  bitter  Papift,  who 
lived  A.  D.  1597,  and  R,  Bellarmine  a  famous 
cardinal  at  Romey  A.  D.   1 599,  as  his  vouchers. 

befides  many  others  of  the  Romifi  church.'^ But. 

among  Proteftants,  I  might  eaiily  quote  many  a- 
gainft  him,  where  he  pan  produce  one  in  his 
favour. 

It  is  enough  for  us  both,  to  let  the  Apoftle  fpeak 
for  himfelf  5  and,  if  he  is  allowed  to  fpeak  com- 
mon fcnfe,  we  muft  grant  that  he  writes  of  a  fe- 
deral^  and  not  a  matrimonial  holinefs, — —Mr.  aS*. 
fays,  the  holinefs  is  <*  that  which  renders  the  off* 
fpring  legally  begot  and  not  baftards."  To  this  ef- 
fed  fee  Page  25,  26. — Againft  this,  I  have  affirm-- 
ed  that  it  is  a /^J^r^/ holinefs  ;  that  they  are  ex^ 
ternally,  relativelyj  and  federally  holy  ;  a  feed  vi^ 
iibly  feparated  and  appropriated  to  the  Lord,  an(i 
iatitk4  to  thofe  outward  privileges  of  the  covenant^ 
^        ' -  -     -        ^l^^jjj 


100         APPENDIX. 

which  they  are  capable  of  in  their  infancy.- >i« 

That  y[x.  S>temiet,  Dr.  Gill,  (and  Mr.  5.  afte? 
them)  {hould  call  it  a  matrimonial hoXintk,  in  op-^ 
pofifion  to  a  federal  holinefs,  is  not  a  little  diffi-^ 
cull  It)  reconcile  with  common  fenfe.  For  the  be-^ 
licver  und  unbeliever  mentioned,  are  both  of  theni 
fiippoftd  lo  be  in  a  married  ftate,  while  in  a  ftate 
of  headienifm.  Now  one  of  them  is  converted  to 
the  ehii^tidn  faith;  a  fcruple  arifes,  whether  the 
other  oiigbt  not  to  be  pat  away,  becaufe  he  or  fhe 
remains  ij)  be.  rhenifm  ftill.  No,  fays  Paul-,  your 
cafe  is  very  differenr 'from  the  cafe  of  the  Ifrael" 
ites,  who  were  forbid  to  marry  with  the  daughters 
of  idolatrous  nations,  both  on  a  religious  and  civil 
Confideration.  And  tho'  you  ought  not  to  marry 
unbelievers  •  yet,  being  married  in  a  ftate  of  un- 
belief, you  may  not  put  away  hufband  or  wife 
that  continues  in  unbelief,  merely  becaufe  you  are 
converted  to  the  chriftian  faith  :  for,  how  knowejl 
thou,  O  believing  ivije^  whether  by  ftill  continue 
ing  to  dwell  in  love,  with  thy  unbelieving  huf-^ 
band,  thou  mayeft  not  be  an  inftrument  of  gain* 
jng  him  over  to  the  chriftian  faith  ?  Or  how  know- 
eft  thou,  O  man,  being  a  believer,  but  thou  mayeft 
be  an  inftrument  of  converting  thy  unbelieving 
wife  ? 

Befides;  the  terms  unclean  and  holy,  which  fre^ 
quently  occur  in  the  Old  and  New  T^ejlament,  are 
never  ufed  to  fignify  legitimate  and  illegitimate : 
*'  And  as  the  Apoftle  was  fpeaking  of  perfons  al- 
ready married,  and  m^arriage  is  a  civil  ordinance 
of  the  God  of  nature,  there  was  no  room  to  doubt 
whether  the  children  of  fuch  unbelieving  parents 
\vere  legitimate  or  not^  fince  that  depends  entirely 


APPENDIX.         lot 

upon  the  legitimacy  of  the  marriage^  and  not  on 
the  religious  character  of  the  hufb.iiid  or  wife  j 
^vhether  one  or  both,  or  neither  of  ihtm,  were 
Chriftians  or  no." — But  as  it  was  with  the  parent, 
fo  it  was  with  the  child,  as  to  church- flate  or  fe- 
deral holinefs  -,  that  being  a  privilege  which  de- 
fcends  from  parent  to  child,  if  the  parents  were 
out  of  the  pale  of  the  vifible  church,  the  child 
was  fo  too  :  if  parents  were  enrolled  with  the  peo- 
ple of  God,  the  chil  ^ren  were  reckoned,  in  a  qua- 
lified fenfe,  members  of  the  vifible  church.  BuC 
when  the  parents  were  divided,  the  one  /6o/}',  the 
other  unclean^  in  this  cafe,  the  Corinthians  feared 
the  children  would  be  unclean  wirh  the  unbelie- 
ving parent.  The  Apoftie  removes  the  fcruple,  (as 
was  obferved)  by  telling  them  that  the  unbelie- 
ving party  does  not  defile  the  iffue  :  but  the  child 
is  holy,  and  not  to  be  reckoned  with  the  unbelie- 
ving parent,  who  was  a  Gentile.  In  this  way 
Pnul  took  off  the  perplexing  fcruples  both  as  to 
themfelves  and  their  children. — Indeed,  he  could 
not  mean  that  the  children  of  believers  were  jno- 
rally  clean  j  for  they  are,  in  this  fenfe,  as  unclean 
"by  nature,  as  the  children  of  other  people.  Nor 
could  he  mean  that  they  were  all  regenerated  by 
the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  for  fad  experience  teaches  us, 
that  many  children,  who  are  federally  holy,  are 
not  born  from  above;  as  alfo,  we  fee  the  fame  lad 
truth  of  many  profeffors,  baptized  in  their  adulc 
age.  "  But  unclean  and  holy  are  manifeftly  to  be 
*'  taken  here,  in  that  well  known  and  f^imiliar 
**  fenfe,  in  which  the  church  oi  IJrael^  and  their 
*'  feed,  by  virtue  of  their  vifible  relation  to  God, 
**  as  his  covenant  people,  were  called  an  holy  peor- 
*J  fle^   and  on  holy  feed^   in  diftinction  from  the 

*'  heathe4^ 


io2         APPENDIX. 

**  heathen  nations,  which  were  fliled  uncleati,  as 
f*  being  out  of  the  pale  of  the  church,  and  ex- 
*^  eluded  from  the  privileges  and  bleffings  of  God'^ 
**  covenant/'  See  for  this,  Deut.  vii.  6.  Essrit 
IX.  2.  Ifoi*  vi.  13.  Chap.  iii.  i.  and  Ixii.  la.  So 
the  parents  and  children  of  the  vifible  church  are 
called  holy,  as  in  Rom.  xi.  16.  and  the  Gentiles,  in 
their  unconverted  flate,  are  reprefented  as  unclean^ 
jiBs  X.  14,  28.  **  When  therefore  the  infants 
of  vifible  believers  are  baptized,  it  is  no  more  let?- 
ting  a  feal  to  a  blank,  than  v^hen  that  prdinance 
is  adminiftered  to  perfons,  who  never  were  bap« 
tized  before,  upon  their  open  profeiTion  of  faith, 
but  were  not  i^ffedually  called  :  for  the  ground  of 
baptizing  infants  or  thoie  that  are  adult,  does  no,^ 
lie  in  a  certainty,  but  in  a  %njibte  covenant  relat^^ 
on  to  Gj?d.  When  parents  make  a  credible  pro-^ 
feffion  of  faith  and  repentance,  a  vifible  hoUnefs 
is  entailed  on  their  children,  and  they  have  an  e? 
vident  right  tp  th©  initiating  token  of  the  covct 
IJant/' 

But  Mr.  S.  learnedly  adds,  ^'  If  it  be  a  holine{§ 
**  which  gives  the  children  a  right  to  baptifm, — ^ 
"  then  all  the  children  of  fuch  parents  muft  have 
^*  a  right  to  it,  from  the  qualification  derived  from 
**  their  parents^r-even  to  50  years  old,  ^c.**  But 
with  the  leave  of  thofe  that  are  more  learned  even 
than  Mr.  .S.  I  will  venture  to  affirm,  that  it  is 
poflible  thofe  children  may  caft  themlelves  out  of 
covenant,  before  they  arrive  to  half  the  age  he  has 
£xed  upon  5  yea,  as  foon  as  they  are  capable  of 
moral  adtion  ;    for  beiiig  in  covenant  does  not  ne^ 

cefTarily  imply  regeneration. -If  it  did,  no  man 

jiving  might  baptize,  either  mm^  womana  or  child. 


A  P  P  E  N  O  I  5f.        165 

«i*-Nor  yet,  does  it  appear  from  any  thing  he  haj 
ofFered,  that  they  can  claim  this  fight  by  theii" 
parents,  after  they  are  grown  to  years  capable  id 
judge  far  themfelves.  So  long  as  they  are  in  a 
ilate  of  infancy,  there  is  as  good  ground  of  hope 
Concerning  them,  as  concerning  thofe  that  profefs 
faith  in  their  adult  age.  The  proper  ground  of 
baptizing  infants  or  adult,  does  not  lie  in  a  cer-* 
tainty  of  their  being  endued  with  the  faving  grace 
of  God,  but  in  their  'vijible  CQVtr\z.nt.  relation  to 
God,  as  I  but  jufl  obfcrved.  And  this  is  full  ^^ 
manifeft,  by  God's  promife  to  the  feed  of  bclie)- 
vers,  as  it  is  by  the  profeffion  of  faith  in  the  ac-»' 
dult. 

Having  confidered  what  Mr.  5*.  ofFered  againfl 
tay  3^,  let  us  now  attend  to  his  reafonings  againflf 
my  4/^  argument. — Page  27.  he  fays  "  it  has  beeii 
**  already  prov'd,  that  in  the  fcriptural  fenfe,  the 
**  meet  fubjedts  of  the  gofpel  church  are  ftich^  #h6 
*'  are  capable  of  profefling  their  faith  in  Chrift, 
*"*  which  infants  are  not.'' — But  what  does  fuch 
arguing  reprove  ?  Will  it  follow,  that  infants  of 
believers  are  not  in  the  vilible  kingdom  of  Chjjift, 
becaufe  fuch  as  are  capable  of  profefling  their  faith 
are  meet  fubjeds  of  that  kingdom  ?  Who  denies 
that  fuch  as  are  capable  of  profe fling  faith  are 
meet  fubjeds  of  the  vifible  church  ?  This  is  not 
the  point  in  queftion  5  nor  can  it  ferve  any  purpofe, 
but  for  a  malic  to  the  writer,  and  an  amufement 
to  weak  or  inattentive  readers.  If  Mr.  S,  would 
have  done  any  thing  againft  my  argument,  he  mufl 
have  proved  that  only  thofe  that  profefs  their  faith 
are  capable  or  meet  fubjeds  of  the  vifible  kingddm 
of  Chrif^,   which  neither  he  nor  his  fathers  have 

ever 


lo. 


APPENDIX, 


ever  beenable  to  do.-^Nor  will  his  calling  the  vU 
fible  kingdom  of  Chrift,  the  gofpel  churchy  help 
the  matter  at  all  x  for  God  never  had  any  other 
than  a  gofpel  church  fince  the  fall  of  Adam,  I 
hope,  in  his  next,  he  will  keep  to  the  point,  and 
either  offer  fome  good  evidence  that  nojte  but  be* 
iievers  are  the  fubjcfl'S  of  Chrift' s  vifible  kingdom ^ 
or  honeftly  confels  that  he  is  not  able  to  prove  it* 

Some  things  that  have  no  relation  to  my  argu-** 
m°nts  I  wholly  pais  over,  tho/  if  I  fliiould  pafs  by 
all  of  that  nature,  the  greatefl  part  of  what  he  has 

wrote  would  be  negleded.^ -Page  28.  he  fays, 

*'  according  to  Mr.  P.  it  is  the  Scripture  dodlrine 
**  that  is  falfe  ;  becaufe  it  will  not  join  with  him 
"  in  admitting  infants  as  members  of  the  vifible 
**  church." — And  what  light  does  he  offer  to  fup* 
port  this  wonderful  difcovery  ?  Why  truly  this, 
'Dtz.  "  I  can  find  no  account  of  any  infants  being 
"  baptized — till  the  latter  end  of  the  2d  or  begin- 
**  ning  of  the  3^  century."  ^D.  If  a  man  of  fo 
great  reading  and  penetration  as  I  am,  has  not 
found  that  infant-baptifm  is  of  earlier  date  than  the 
9.d  or  3^  century,  then  it  is  the  Scripture  dodtrine 
that  Mr.  P.  reprefents  as  falfe  dodtrine.  For,  all 
the  knowledge  of  this  matter,  that  is  contained  in 

the  Bible  or  profane  hiftory,  lives  in  me\ -ASi'^ 

um  erit  de  ecclefia,  cum  ilk  morietur, 'Non  jub- 

iimiiis  [apit  qtiam  ille, But,  as  the  hiftory  ot 

infant-baptifm  belongs  to  my  laft  argument,  I  (hall 
add  no  more  in  this  place  ;  except  a  word  or  two 
of  Latin  5  Vana  jcientice  opinione  imhutia, 

'  In  the  next  place  he  tells  his  readers,  that  tpiih-^ 
iickh  patronize  Arminianijm^  and  give  it  a  kindre-^ 

T'  "  ception^ 


APPENDIX.         ros 

teffion.     And  why  has  he  afTerted  this  with  much 
pretended  forrow?      Anf  Becaufe  of  the  glaring 
evidence  of  mj  apoftafy,    which  he  finds  in  thefe 
Vt^ords,  'oiz.  "  The  onJy  ground  of  hope  that  we  c<\\\ 
*•  have  of  infants  being  the  members  of  Chriftj  by 
•'  a  vital  union,  arifes  from  their  vifible  member- 
**  fliip.*'      Upon  this  he  reprefents  me,  as  rejcdt* 
ing  the  covenant  of  grace,    and  the  fatisfadion  of 
Chrift,  and  fetting  up  the  aft  of  the  parent  or  mi* 
nifter  inftead  thereof,  ^c.    See  P.  28,  29. — 'Tis 
ufual  with  Grub-fir eet  writers  to  pretend  their  de- 
fign  is- to  reform  the  church  j  and  this,  they  ima* 
gincj  will  excufe  any  flinders.     But  who,  except 
ikr.  S.  could  have  the  foreheud  or  folly  to  mifie* 
prefent  me  in  this  manner?     Who,  that  has  com- 
ttion  fenfe,    can  help  fearing  this  was  a  contrived' 
ft'aud,  if  he  gives  himfeif  the  trouble  to  read  .vhat 
I  have  Written  upon  that  head? — -if  Mr.  .S\  wou  d" 
do  honour  to  God,  and  to  his  o  .vn  labouring  ciia- 
rader,   he  muft  confefs  that,  in  many  pLces,   e- 
fpecially  in  this,  he  has  mifreprefented  me,  either 
through  great  weaknefs,  or  through  wickednels.— « 
I  defire  the  reader  to  confider,  what  ground  of 
hope  he  can  have,  that  another  is  interefled  in  the 
covenant  of  grace,   or  the  Ipirittal  privileges,    or 
fpecial  bleffings  of  the  Mediator's  purchafe,  unlefs 
the  ground  is  'oifibie  ?      Can  Mr.  S.  by  his  great 
penetration,  or  by  legerdemain^  perfuade  his  admi- 
rers that  a  perlon  is  vitally  united  to  Chrift,  by  a- 
ny  vivifihle  evidence?     Or  can  he,   upon  antinO'^ 
mian  principles,    (liow  his  readers  a  method  or 
ground  of  hope  for  the  falvation  of  others,  with- 
dut  a  mfihle  ground  of  hope  for  it?     I  lay  once 
rhore,  that  it  is  impoffible  for  any  man  living,  to 
judge  of  that  w^hichis^  to  him,   in'^ifibk^  any  o- 


io6        APPENDIX. 

ther  way  than  by  that  which  is  vijibk.  And  if 
IVIr.  5.  does  not  coi  fefs  in  his  next,  let  him  make 
the  art  of  reafoning  quake  before  his  mighty  con- . 
fequences ;  or  elfe  he  will  be  hardly  put  to  it  to 
prove,  that  I  have  given  /Irmintanijm  a  kind  re- 
ception. He  has  laid  his  charge  too  high,  conli- 
derin?  he  brought  no  evidence  to  fupport  it :  but 
poffibly  it  was  in  his  mind,  that  if  a  perfon  {hould 
confidently  affirm,  he  believes^  perceives,  or  has  a 
jenle  of  his  ju/iificationy  that  rfiouid  be  received 
for  good  evidence  of  it,  not  to  himfelf  only,  but 
to  others.  Or,  might  he  not,  from  a  pious  con- 
cern lefl  the  infeBion  of  bad  divinity,  dangerous 
doBrine,  &c.  (hould  fpread,  advife  his  devoted 
readers  to  find  out  fome  ground  of  hope  concern- 
ing infants,  dying  in  infancy,  without  any  pretence 
of  evidence  ?  I  fhall  not  pretend  to  guefs  at  the 
certain  meaning  of  that  elaborate  part  of  his  pam- 
phlet 3  but  I  really  believe  it  was  his  own. 

Again  ;  he  fays,  **  To  render  my  argrment  the 
**  more  plaufible,  I  have  quoted  Matt.  xix.  14." 
See  P.  29.  This  he  thinks  will  not  ferve  my  end, 
b^;cauie  thrift  baptized  none,  Truej  JefusChrift, 
i^)^  wife  reafons,  b^ prized  none  with  his  own  hands, 
tho'  he  entered  f  ich  a  multitude  of  difciples  into  his 
fchool  by  baptirm,  that  it  made  his  malicious  ene- 
mie?  riifje.  Bui  it  is  nOihiniJ  againft,  nor  in  favour 
of  my  argument,  whether  he  b  :ptized  or  not.  My 
argument  is, th  it  the  infantsof  b  li^vers  have  2i  right 
to  baptifm,  becaufe  they  are  members  of  the  viji- 
ble  church.  Our  Saviour,  in  the  text  referred  to, 
phiily  intimates,  that  their  covenant  interefl,  and 
vifihle  chu  ch  membe'^iliip,  Ihould  be  continued 
under  the  prefent  csifpeniuUon,  ^     Oj  Juch  is  the 

kingdom 


APPENDIX.         107 

kingdom  of  heaven.  The  argument  for  ir/Lnt- 
baptifm  from  this  text  1  grounded  upon  the  words 
Chrifl  uttered  on  the  occafion  j  and  not  upon  his 
pra(5tice ;    as  the  reader  may  fee  by  turning  to  the 

argument  itfelf. Mr.  b\  long  quota*  ion  fiom 

Dr.  Gilly  cannot  help  his  caufe,  in  the  minds  of 
thofe  who  confidcr  the  reafon  why  thofe  infants 
were  brought  to  Chrift,  It  was  not  for  inftruc- 
tion  J  for  they  were  incapable  of  that.  It  was  not 
for  the  cure  of  bodily  dileafesj  for  then  the  difci- 
ples  would  not  have  rebuked  thofe  that  brought 
them,  becaufe  they  knew  it  was  ufual  for  Chriil 
to  cure  difeafes  in  all  ages. — But  they  were  the  in- 
fants of  parents  in  covenant  with  God.  Chrift 
was  then  on  the  coafts  of  Judea^  as  miniiler  of 
the  circumcifion,  Matt.  xv.  24.  and  Rom.  xv.  8, 
If  thefe  infants  were  not  in  covenant,  why  did  our 
Saviour  admit  them  ?  He  did  not  do  fo,  vv^hen  the 
Canaanitijh  woman  came  wiih  her  child,  Matt.  xv. 
26.  But  he  admitted  thefe  little  children  upon  a 
common  right,  which  belongs  to  the  children  of 
believing  parents,  viz.  becauie  they  were  mem- 
bers of  the  vifible  church  ;  and  therefore  they  had 
a  church  privilege  beftowed  upon  them.  He  laid 
his  hands  upon  them^  "  according  to  an  ancient 
"  rite  of  the  Jewifo  church  in  benedidions,"  and 
blefled  them.  Now,  tho'  this  was  not  brought 
for  a  diredt  precedent  for  baptifm  in  particular, 
yet  it  is  a  clear  precedent  tor  thofe  church  privi- 
leges of  which  infants  arc  capable.  None  that  are 
vifible  members  of  the  church,  may  be  denied 
admiffion  by  baptifm.  Thofe  that  are  admitted 
to  one  church  privilege,  may  not  be  denied  ano- 
ther of  which  they  are  capable.  And  hofe  th.rt 
are  admitted  to  church  privileges  are  church  mem-^ 


io8        APPEND!  X. 

bers.  Our  Saviour  teaches  us  very  plainly,  that 
the  children  of  believers  are,  in  a  qualified  fenfe^ 
members  of  the  vilible  church  •  that  this  privilege 
fhould  be  continued  to  them  under  the  new  dif" 
penfation  of  the  covenant  as  it  was  before.  And 
JcTus  Chrifl:  accepted  the  dedication  of  them  as 
the  acS  and  deed  of  the  parents ;  therefore  he  took 
it  ill  of  thofe  that  forbid  them,  and  that  would 
have  excl.  ded  thofe  whom  he  would  have  recei- 
ved. His  faying  nothing  about  their  being  bapti^ 
sed,  is  not  at  all  unfavourable  to  the  dodtrine  of 
infant- baptifm.  It  is  enough  that  he  has  faid  they 
are  members  of  the  church.  And  if  they  were 
not  capcble  of  being  admitted  into  the  vifible 
church,  they  would  ftand  without  any  vifible 
ground  of  hope  of  their  falvation,  Eph,  i.  12, 
For  any  to  conclude  that  a  perfon  is  not  intereft- 
ed  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  is  to  doom  that  per- 
fon to  hell.  By  nature  all  are  children  of  wrath  -^ 
and  neither  Mr.  S,  nor  any  other  man,  can  find 
out  any  vifible  ground  of  hope  for  their  falvation,  if 
-they  are  put  out  of  the  covenant. — He  may  indeed, 
with  Bellarminey  fet  up  a  limbus  patrum^  as  he 
fights  againfi  iiifants  with  B.ellarmine\  weapons  5 
for  it  is  as  evident  as  any  cunclufion  can  follow 
ii  om  its  premifes,  that  infants  dying  without  any 
intereft  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  do  perifh  for  e- 
ver,  unlefs  there  is  a  place  in  hell  from  whence 
they  are  delivered,  after  fome  proper  time  of  pur» 
gallon.  And  even  Mr.  S.  if  he  believes  that  doc- 
g:i;ine,  I  can  hardly  think  will  readily  own  it. 

Upon  my  5/^  argumeott,  he  fays,  P.  31.  that 
*'  I  make  baptlfm  to  bring  infants  mto,  and  feal 
II  them  in  ihe  covenant  oi  ^^^ce/*    Here  agam 


APPENDIX.        Top 

tie  impofes  upon  bis  readers,  and  the  Searcher  of 
'hearts  knows  his  deiign  in  it.  If  the  reader  wiH 
carefully  look  over  the  argument,  he^rmy  fee  that 
I  have  not  given  the  leail  colour  for  Mr.  S.  to  af- 
fert  that  I  make  iaptijm  to  hring  infants  into  ths 
covenant  of  grace.  If  I  have  aflerted  any  fuch 
^thing,  why  are  not  my  own  words  produced  to 
prove  it  ?  Mr.  .S.  mufl  know,  if  he  underftands 
.plain  EngliJJjy  that  1  fay,  the  infants  of  believing 
-parents  are  interefted  in  the  covenant  of  grace, 
:and  therefore  have  a  right  of  indu<5tiQn  by  the  ia- 

itiating  token  of  the  covenant, -Bat  having  af- 

ferted  that  falfliood,  he  draws  this  inference  frooi 
•it,  viz,  **  Then  all  the  children  of  believers  who 
**  are  baptized,  mufl  be  intitled  to  the  blefSngs 
**  of  that  covenant,  which  are  juftiticatian,  adop« 
*■*  tion,  fan<3ification,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
^'  Ghoft/'  ^r.— Now,  if  the  premifes  had  been 
ever  fo  true,  the  confequence  is  really  no  confe- 
quence  at  all  :  for  children  may  be  interefl:ed  in 
the  covenant  oi  grace,  and  never  be  juftified  in  the 
iight  of  God,  nor  fandiEed  by  the  Holy  Spirit*— 
Sandified  indeed,  they. are;  but  may  be  only  a 
federal  fan^tification,  as  they  ffand  in  a  covenant 
relation  to  God  ;  as  thofe,  Heh.  x.  29.  They  are 
feparated  from  the  world,  and  dedicated  to  God 
by  covenant. — < — In  this  fenfe  all  the  congregati- 
on of  Ifrael  were  holy,  Corah  and  his  followers 
not  excepted.  Numb.  xvi.  3,  9.  There  is  a  fane- 
tification  by  dedication  to  God,  and  a  fandificatioa 
by  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  In  the  former 
fenfe,  all  the  vifible  church  are  fandified  ;  but  the 
indwelling  of  the  Spirit  is  proper  to  ihi^m  only 
who  are  effe^flually  called.  in  the  former  fenfe, 
'  ibe  infants  of  believing  parents  are  fandiiied :  God 


no        APPENDIX. 

has  feparated  them  from  the  world,  and  requires 
their  dedication  to  him  at  the  hands  of  their  pa- 
rents. But  they  may  totally  and  Jinally  fall  away 
from  this  grace  of  the  covenant,  thouih  they  fhall 
never  fall  from  the  grace  of  efFcdual  calling. 

Whoever  reads  my  ^th  argument  with  care  and 
due  attention,  will  plainly  lee,  not  only  that  Mr. 
S.  has  milieprefented  me  in  what  I  have  quoted 
from  him  already  ;  but  more  grolsly  in  what  fol- 
lows, 'uiz.  Page  32.  **  As  to  the  privileges  of  the 
**  chri/iian  church  being  lefs  than  the  privileges 
of  the  Jewi/h  church,  bec^^iife  of  the  denial  of  in- 
*'  fsnt-baptiiiTi  J  it  is  mere  noije  without  any  jub" 
fiance'*  Aiid  to  prove  this  he  fays  that  the  bleffings 
of  the  covenant  were  exhibited  by  types  and  £ha- 
dows  ;  but  now  they  (liine  in  their  unclouded  luf- 
tre. — The  JewijJ:)  church  was  made  up  of  lively 
and  dead  materials,  but  the  gofpel  church,  ofpro- 
feffed  lively  materials. — Infants  were  circumcifed^ 
and  fo  bound  to  kt^ep  the  whole  law,  from  which 
bondage  they  are  delivered. — ^Andvhofe  that  have 
leifureand  opporturiv,  may  fee  what  he  fays,  and 
many  orher  things  in  .1  book  upon  Scripture  meta- 
phors firff  put  out  by  B.  i^,— Alter  a  long  parade, 
nothing  to  the  purpofe  in  lia  d,  he  comes  to  a  j\.th 
head,  and  fays,  that  we  fay  the  Anabaftijii  '*  lelTen 
**  the  p'^ivileges  of  the  gofpel,  by  not  admitting  in- 
*^^  fants  into  the  gofpel  church,  feeing  the  infants 
**  of  the  'Jewi  were  admitted  into  the  Jewijh 
"  church."  I  take  it  for  granted  they  are  his  own 
words,  becaufe  he  gives  the  credit  of  them  to  no 
body  elfe.  But,  iince  he  pretends  to  write  againft 
what  I  have  printed,  he  would  have  difcovered  as 
jnuch  honefty,  if  he  bad  kept  clofe  to  my  terms. 

'^'     ~~^  He 


APPENDIX.        Ill 

He»imuft  know  better  than  to  fuppofe  the  church 
of  God,  under  the  anicent  difpenfation,  was  not  as 
truly  a  gofpel  churchy  as  the  church  of  God  under 
the  prefent  difpenfation.     Why  then  ftiould  he,  a- 
gain  and  again^   intimate  the  contrary,   unlefs  it  13 
to  deceive  his  readers  ?  To  diihonour  the  fcriptures 
of  the  Old  leftament^  and  to  reprefent  its  promifes 
fenfual  and  carnal  ?  Ur  to  take  the  infants  of  be- 
lievers out  of  covenant  with  God,  and  fo,  with  the 
Papifts,   to  conclude  their  damnation  ?  For  with- 
0!it  doubt,  all  out  of  covenant  with  God  are  in  a  pe- 
rii'tiing  condition.  Or  does  he  intimate  this  to  keep 
the  children  of  believers  from  baptifm  ?    I  fuppofe 
it  is  the  lafl-.     For  he  fays,  P^^^33.  "  It  was  a 
**  privilege  to  the  children  of  the  'Jews  to  be  ad- 
"  mitted  into  the  Jewi/Jj  church,  in  their  infancy,' 
**  by  circumcifion :  but  it  is  no  privilege  to  our  chil- 
*'  dien  to  be  admitted  into  the  gofpel  church  by 
**  baptifm."   The  fame  his  excellent  Mr.  Morgan 
has  laid  before  him. — But  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other  has  given  any  evidence  of  the  truth  of  their 
aifertion,  unlefs  pofitive  afifertions  will  do  for  evi- 
dence. They  both  confefs  it  was  a  privilege  to  the 
children  of  the  Jews  ;  and  that  they  were  admit- 
ted in  confequence  of  God's  command  :  but  offer 
no  reafon   why  it  is  not  a  privilege  to  admit  the 
children  of  believers  into  the  vifible  church  by  bap- 
tifm, under  the  piefent  difpenfation  ;  as  it  was  to 
admit  them  by  circumcifion  under  the  former.— 
Why  did  not   Mr.  5.  or  his  champion,  prove  the 

point,  if  it  were  proveable  ? We  have  aflerted 

the  contrary,  and  are  able  to  fupport  our  afl'ertioii 
by  good  evidence.  For,  if  it  was  the  command  of 
God  that  they  iliould  be  admitted  into  the  church, 
by  the  initialing  token  of  the  covenant,   under  the 

former 


ii2        A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X. 

former  difpenfation  ;  and  if  that  command  is  nd 
■where  repealed,  (as  I  have  already  obferved)  then 
k  is  as  much  the  command  of  God  to  admit  them 
How>  as-  under  the  former  difpenlation*  The 
change  o^  a  token  of  the  covenant,  does  not  argue- 
the  change  of  the  fubjed:,  unlefs  the  law  for  ad- 
Eiitting  infants  had  been  repealed.  And  if  the 
command  continues  in  force,  it  muft  be  a  privilege 
to  admit  them  ;  for  obedience  to  the  command  of 
God,,  flrongly  infers^a  privilege* 

But,  Mr.  5^.  tells  us,  that  "  by  baptizing  our  chil^ 
**  dren  and  taking  them  into  thegofpel  church,  vref 
**  lefTen  the  glory  of  the  building,  which  is  to  confift 
of  litjely  flones,  Gf«r."  alluding  to  i  Pet,  i'l.  5.  But  he 
"  fays,  our  children  are  dead  materials."-— Tho*,  to' 
purfue  the  metaphor  in  his  own  way,  we  have  full 
as  much  reafon  to  believe  that  numbers  which  he 
and  others  plunge  underwater,  are  dead  materials, 
as  that  the  infants  of  believing  parents  are  fo.— 
But  Mr.  S.  does  awfully  pervert  the  plain  fenfe  of' 
the  Apoftle,  as  will  eafily  be  feen  by  confidering 
his  own  words.  To  whom  coming  as  unto  a  liiiing 
S-tone ;  L  e.  coming  unto  Chrift  is  the  way  and 
condition,  of  being  built  as  living  flones.  And 
this  was  the  cafe  with  feme  to  whom  Peter  wrote 
this  epiftle,  but  not  with  others.  Some  daily  ap-^ 
plied  to  Chrifl  by  faith  for  edification,  as  unto  the 
only  foundation  of  all  their  fecurity,  hope  and  hap- 
pinefs;  and  they  were  as  living  Jlones^  being  vital- 
ly  united  to,  and  deriving  virtue  from  Chrift,  who 
was  their  living  and  enhvening  foundation;  others 
who  profeffed  Chrifl,  like  other  hypocrites,  lived 
upon  themfelves,  and  fo  were  as  a  dead  weight 
upon  thofe.  they,  were  vifiblj  united- with.— -'Tis 

indeed 


APPENDIX.         Mj 

indeed  the  beauty  of  the  churchy  under  any  dlA" 
penfation  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  to  have  profef" 
fors  coQiing  daily  to  Chrift,  as  tt)  ^  living  jhne^ 
Did  not  the  church  in  the  wildernefs  receive  th'e 
lively  oracles  of  God^  by  Mol^s,  A£is,  vii.  38  ?  And 
were  not  thefe  oracles  fpirit  and  life,  to  all  that 
received  them  by  faith,  as  the  word  of  the  living 
God  ?  And  yet  they  did  not  mar  the  beauty  and 
glory  of  the  church  under  that  difpenfation,  by 
admitting  their  children.  No :  this  was  one  part 
of  its  beauty  in  their  day.  And  fp  the  churchy 
Under  the  prefent  difpenfation,  is  built  upon  Chriftj 
the  living  /lone  ;  and  all  true  Chridians,  that  are 
daily  coming  to  him  by  faith,  are  lively  ftones* 
But  this  is  no  argument  againft,  but  much  in  fa- 
vour of  admitting  their  children  to  baptifm. — >— 
But  Mr.  S.  fays,  "  I  can't  find  it  does  children  a^ 
**  ny  good  to  baptize  them.*'— —And  what  if  I 
fhould  fay,  I  can't  find  it  does  adult  profefTors  any 
good  to  baptize  them .?  Would  my  ignorance  be 
an  argument  that  they  have  no  privileges  fuperior 
to  them  that  are  not  baptized  ?  Would  it  do  the 
reader  any  good  to  find  that  I  was  very  ignorant  ? 
or  that  I  never  attended  properly  to  what  the  Scrip- 
tures have  taught  us  in  this  matter  ?  ■  What  ad* 
vantage  had  the  Jtw  ?  His  being  circumcifed  no 
more  fecured  his  falvation,  than  if  he  had  been  a 
heathen.  And  yet  Paul  tells  us,  there  was  much 
profit  in  circumcifiott)  and  that  every  way.  Tho' 
thefe  outward  privileges  bear  no  part  in  the  grounds 
of  acceptance  with  God  ;  yet,  in  the  nature  of  means 
and  helps,  the  Jews  had  thereby  many  prerogatives 
above  the  Gentiles,  See  Rom.  iii.  1,2.  Chap.  ix. 
4,  5.  And  the  token  of  the  covenant  is  as  bene- 
ficial under  the  prefent,  as  it  was  under  the  former 

P  dilpen-' 


114        APPENDIX, 

difpenfation.  And  baptlfln,  as  a  chriftian  facr^* 
ment,  comes  in  the  room  of  circiimcifion,  Col.  ii. 
3  1,12.  As  circumcifion  in  the  flefh  was  a  fige 
of  fpiritual  circumeifion,  fo  baptifm  is  the  anfwer 
of  a  good  cotifcience  towards  God,  Both  thefe  fa- 
craments  are  a  folemn  obligation  upon  confcience 
to  return  a  fuitable  anfwer  to  the  demands  of  the 
living  God.  Now,  the  fisnification  being  the  fame, 
baptifm  mafl:  come  in  the  room  of  the  former  rite 
of  admiffion.  The  Apoflle  tells  us,  not  orly  that 
believers  ihould  partake  of  the  thing  fignified  by 
the  rite  of  circnmcifion^  but  that  God  has  alfa 
fubflitcted  another  external  ordinance,  of  like  ufe, 
li.  nification  and  defign,  more  fuitable  to  the  fim- 
plicity  of  the  ftate  of  the  church  under  the  pre- 
fent  difpenfation.— But  if  the  infants  of  believing 
parents  were  not  to  be  baptized,  a  flrong  objedi- 
on  would  arife  asainft  the  glory  of  the  church  un- 
der the  new  difpenfation  of  the  covenant  of  grace^ 
as  to  external  and  fpiritual  privileges ;  fince  the 
children  of  the  Ijrd^Utes,  under  the  former  dif- 
penfation, were  tircumcifed  as  well  as  others.  ■ 
But  the  great  difficulty  with  Mr.  S.  is,  he  does  not 
find  it  does  children  any  good.  He  may  confider, 
if  he  has  a  heart  to  it,  as  one  that  muft  give  an 
account  to  God,  whether  it  is  no  hurt^  to  fhut 
thofe  out  of  the  covenant,  whom  God  has  taken 
in  ? — I  may  affirm,  without  boafling,  that  the  ar- 
.guments  offered  do  fullv  prove  that  the  infants  of 
believing  parents  are  included  in  the  covenant,  and, 
by  a  divine  command,  they  had  a  right  to  the  in- 
itiating token  of  it. — Alfo  it  has  been  proved,  that 
the  law  demanding  the  token  of  the  covenant  to 
be  adminiftered  to  infants,  has  never  been  revo- 
ked :  and  therefore  it  mufl  be  as  fully  in  force  now 
_ . ..  -_  ^^ 


APPENDIX.         115 

£S  formerly,  iinlefs  Mr.  S.  or  fome  of  his  aiiabap- 
tijl  predeceffors  have  a  fecret  oxiwoijible  warrant  to 
revoke  it.  How  then  will  they  anlwer  it  to  God, 
or  a  good  confcience,  that  they  de/pt'feihQiok^n  of 
thecovenant  adminiftered  to  children,  fince  God  has 
enjoined  it,  and  never  repealed  it  ?  Is  it  no  duty  nor 
privilege  to  obey  God  ?  Is  it  no  privilege  to  be  ad- 
mitted and  incorporated  in  the  vilible,church  ?  No 
privilege  to  be  brouj;ht  into  a  political  nrvion  with 
Chrift  ?  No  privilege  that  we  and  ours  are  his  "j/- 
fible  fub]e6ls?  No  privilege  to  have  a  joint  inte- 
reft  with  all  other  members  of  the  vifible  church 
in  the  providential  care  of  its  glorious  head  ?  And 
is  not  the  whole  Ifrael  of  God  the  proper  objedl: 
of  fpecial  providence  ?  See  Pfal.  cxxi.  4.  Ifai, 
xxvii.  3.  Heb.  i.  14. — Befides  ;  are  not  the  mem- 
bers of  the  vifible  church  the  more  fpecial  objeds 
of  the  promifes  of  faving  grace  ?    particularly  the 

promifes  in  l/ai.Viv,  13.   Jer,  xxxi.  31.  &c. ^ 

Further ;  is  it  no  privilege  to  have  the  promifes 
fealed  and  confirmed  to  them,  in  an  external  man- 
ner ?  May  not  our  children,  under  a  fenfe  of  fin 
and  danger,  ground  a  plea  for  mercy,  as  they  are 
a  part  of  God's  Ifrael  f It  thefe  things  are  pri- 
vileges; then  it  is  the  glory  of  the  church,  under 
the  prefent  difpenfation  of  the  covenant,  to  have 
the  children  of  believers  acknowledged,  and  feal- 
ed with  the  initiating  token  of  the  covenant,  as 
much  as  formerly, 

To  my  6/,6  argument,  Mr.  5*.  objeds,  i.  That 
"  Ilhould  have  firft  told  my  readers  that  Zaccheus 
**  was  a  married  man,  and  then  proved  it,"  and 
the  like  of  Ly^ia,  P.  35.  If  Mr.  S.  underwood 
bimfelf,  and  the  rules  of  fair  reafoning,  he  mnft 

coufiucr 


ii6        APPENDIX. 

conCidzr  me  as  refpondent^  and  himfelf  as  opponent^ 
And  then  the  labouring  oar  would  lie  upon  hini 
to  prove,  that  neither  Zacchem^  nor  Lydia^  were 
married  ;  or  if  they  ivere^  they  had  no  children. 
Bat  he  knew  that  bat  few  of  his  admirers  under- 
flood  the  art  of  thinking,  and  much  lefs  the  art 
of  reafoning  and  ranging  their  thoughts  in  words; 
and  therefore  "  mere  noife  without  any  fubftance,'* 

would  ferve  his  purpofe  as  well  as  any  thing. 

To  fuppofe  there  were  no  children  in  their  houfes, 
is  to  take  that  for  granted,  which  is  impoffible  to 
prove.  He  knows,  1  hope,  that  as  a /^/r  refpon- 
dent,  I  might  put  him  to  prove  even  that  impoffi- 
bility.  But  inftead  of  that,  I  would  obferve,  it 
is  certain  that  a  man's  or  woman's  houfhold,  &c^ 
ail  along  in  the  Old  lejiament,  fignify  the  whole 
family,  v^hich  includes  all  the  children  of  the  fa- 
mily. And  there  is  no  room  to  doubt,  but  when 
Zaccheus  began  his  praifes  to  God,  and  Lydia  had 
her  heart  opened  to  receive  the  Lord,  they  took 
up  the  refolution  of  David  refpefting  the  adult^ 
viz.  If  they  would  tiof  give  in  their  names  to 
Chrift,  they  £hould  nof  dwell  in  their  houfe^  nor 
tarry  in  their  fight  ;  /.  e.  they  would  reje(S  them 
from  the  number  of  their  family.  And  as  to  the 
infants  of  their  houfe,  they  were  baptized  in  the 
right  of  their  believing  parents.  As  it  was  a  well 
J<:nown  cullom  among  the  Jews,  to  admit  profe» 
lytes  into  the  church  of  Ifrael  by  baptizing  them 
and  their  whole  families,  inclulive  of  their  infants, 
there  is  a  plain  reference  to  this  cuftom,  where  it 
is  faid  Zaccheus  and  his  houfe,  Lydia  and  her  hou- 
fhold,  and  the  Jailor  and  all  his  were  baptized. 
And  it  is  remarkable,  that  in  the  j^Sfs  of  the  A- 
fojflesj,  God's  covenant  with  his  people  and  their 


APPENDIX.         117 

fised,  and  the  application  of  the  new  teftament  feal 
of  it  to  children,  as  well  as  to  grown  perfons,  is 
flrongly  intimated,  firft  with  refped:  to  the  convert- 
ed "Jeivs^  afterwards  X.o  profelytes  of  the  gate ^   and 
again  to  the  idolatrous  Gentiles.  *      I  am  not  con- 
cerned, however,  in  the  prefent  controverfy,  whe- 
ther Zaccheus  or  L)'dia  were  married  ;  or  whether 
they  had  children,  the  offspring  of  their  own  bo- 
dies.   It  is  enough  that  they  had  families,  inclu- 
ding children,    that  were  admitted   members  of 
the  vifible  church,    and  included  in  that  covenant 
which  fays  **  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee,  and  to  thy 
**  feed."     They  had  boufliolds  that  were  baptized 
on  the  foot  of  the  Abrahamick  covenant.     Some, 
no  doubt,  were  grown  up,    and  inftruifted  in  the 
knov/ledge  of  God,  and  of  this  covenant,  in  order 
to  have  the  token  of  it  applied  to  them  ;  but  there 
is  no  more  room  to  doubt  but  there  were  children 
that  were  baptized  in  thofe  houfholds  than   that 
there  were  children  in  Abraham* s  houfhold  that 
were  circumcifed.     Will  any  fliy,  after  Mr.  S.  that 
none  were  baptized  but  fuch  as  heard  the  word  and 
rejoiced  in  God  ?    Anf.    The  adult  in  Abraham'^ 
houfe  were  inflru<5led  before  thev  were  circumci- 
fed  :  and  li  Zaccheus,  Lydia  and  others,  had  adult 
perfons,  as  probably  they*  had  in  their  houfes,  no 
doubt  they  were,  fome  way  or  other,  intruded 
before  they  were  baptized.    But  for  any  to  fay  that 
there  were  no  children  baptized  in  the  right  of  the 
heads  of  thofe  families,  is  really  to  affirm  a  thing  a- 
gainfl  the  general  renorof  the  Scripture,  which  in- 
cludes children  in  houfholds.— You  will,  perhaps, 
fay,  that  all  the  baptized  believed  and  rejoiced  in 

God, 

•  Fide  Dr.  Cuifff  upon  Ails  liih  Chapter. 


jiS        APPENDIX. 

God,  as  you  fuppofs  appears  from  yfBsxv'i,  34^ 
But  if  you  nnderftand  the  Greek  no  better  than  the 
fmatterer  Mr.  S.  repeatedly  tells  you  of,  you  v.'ill 
eafily  fee  that  there  is  ro  proof  of  all  belie'ving  and 
rejoicing  who  were  baptized.  Greek  ;  Egaliiafa* 
to  panciki  pepijietikoos  to  Tbeo.  Englifli ;  He  be^ 
lienjinz  in  God  rejoiced  all  ever  hiskonfe.  It  has  no 
reference  to  the  faith  or  joy  of  his  family  ;  but  his 
'onl)\  And  therefore  Mr.  5.  has  brought  nothing 
from  the  Scripture,  of  any  weight,  againft  my  laft 
argument. 

"What  he  fays  {Page  39.)  upon  A0s  ii.  29.  is 
s  perverfion  of  the  plain  lenfe  of  the  text.  Peter 
there  tells  his  hearers,  that  if  they  repented  and  were 
baptized,  they  might  receive  the  pardon  of  their 
iins,  and  warrantably  hope  for  that  bleffing  :  yea, 
he  tells  them  they  ought  to  put  in  for  it,  as  ever 
they  defired  their  own,  or  their  children's  happi- 
nefs  :  "  for  the  promife  [Gen,  xvii.  7.)  and  par- 
**  ticularly  the  promife  Ifai.  xliv.  '3.  Ch.  59,  21. 
*'  runs,  to  you  and yvur  children,^*  The  bleffing 
of  the  Abrahamick  covenant  is  to  come  upon  the 
Gentiles,  as  well  as  the  yews^  under  this  new  dif- 
penfafion  of  the  covenant,  the'  at  prefentthey  [the 
Jfws)  are  cut  off:  yea,  it  is  to  come  upon  all  that 
God  fhail  call  unto  the  faith  and  fellowship  of  the 
gofpel  :  the  fame  promife  is  to  them  and  their 
children,  to  be  fulfilled  in  its  proper  feafon.  The 
fame  promifes  that  w'ere  unto  the  Jews  are  as  ef- 
fectual for  any  of  the  Gentiles.  The  promife  fpo- 
ken  of  looks  to  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham^ 
and  afterwards  renewed  thro'  the  ancient  difpenfati- 
on  of  the  covenant,  to  Ifrael  and  his  feed.  Plence  it 
Reaches  us,  that  the  prefentdifpenfatipji  of  the  fame 
~  CQvenant^ 


APPENDIX.         ^  f9 

covenant,  Is  fo  far  from  repealing  the  promife^ 
that  it  takes  effcdt  among  believing  Gentiles  as  well 
as  "Jews,  And  it  is  a  thing  incredible,  that  when 
Gentiles  are  incorporated  into  the  fame  church 
with  the  Jews  which  were  not  broken  off  from 
the  church,  the  Jewijh  members  fliould  have  a 
ri<7ht  for  their  children,  and  the  Gentile  members 
have  none  for  theirs. 

Before  I  difmifs  what  Mr.  S.  has  fatd  upon  the 
text  but  jail:  explained,  I  defire  the  ferious  reader 
to  coniider  what  honefty  or  policy  there  is  in  fayingj^ 
**  to  argue  that  believing  parents  are  to  get  their 
*•  children  baptized  becaufe  the  promife  is  to 
them,"  is  no  better  arguing,  than,  to  argue,  that 
•'  thofe  v/ho  are  afar  off  arc  to  be  baptized."  I 
fay,  what  poflible  honefl:  reafon  can  a  man  haver 
for  fuch  blind  talk  as  this  is  ?  Does  not  Mr.  ^. 
know  ;  does  not  the  very  letter  of  the  text  teach 
him  and  every  man,  that  the  promife  refers  to  the 
cail}  Thofe  whom  the  Lord  calls -,  tho'  they  may 
now  be  afar  off  j  tho'  now  they  may  be  the  poor 
favages  In  Amef^ica  j  yet  ivhen  the  Lord  our  God 
(hall  call  them,  the  promife  is  to  them  and  their 
children  :  and  therefore  they  and  their  children 
will  then  have  a  right  to  the  initiating  feal  of  the 
covenant. 

But  to  proceed  :  I  have  fubjoined  a  fcrap  of 
church  hidory  to  the  account  that  is  left  us  in  the 
bible,  touching  the  dowtrine  of  infant-baptifm. 
And  to  do  Mr.  5.  juflice,  he  has  rightly  faid  Or i gen 
was  the  firft  I  mentioned:  but  he  objecfls,  i.  To 
the  time  of  his  living,  from  Mr.  Rees^  that  he 
flouriihed  about  230  years  after  Chrift,      I  lliall 

not 


'126        APPENDIX 

not  difpnte  the  time  with  him;  but  if  any  oft© 
wants  evidence  of  that  matter,  let  him  fee  it  in  a 
fmall  piece  upon  baptifm^  wrote  by  the  author  of 
a  piece  agiiinft  Dr.  Whitens  Three  Letters.  His 
fluthoiity  is  doubtlefs  equal  to  what  Mr.  S.  has 
brought  againft  it.  2.  He  objeds  that  they  are 
not  Origen'%  own  words,  but  a  tranjlation  of 
him.  *Tis  readily  acknowledged  that  in  tranflating 
Origen's  works,  fome  things  were  added  to  what 
Origen  faid  :  but  in  his  commentary  upon  the 
Romans^  wherein  he  treats  of  infant- baptifm,  it  is 
allowed  that  there  are  no  additions  made  to  his  own 
words.  And  here  he  fays,  pro  hoc  et  eccleJJa,  &C. 
/.  e.  *'  For  this  alfo,  the  church  had  anapoftolick 
order  to  baptize  infants.  *'  And  this  abundantly 
proves  the  baptifm  of  infants  was  the  pradice  of 
his  time. But  let  us  mention  fome  of  ear- 
lier date.  Particularly 

yu/lin  Martyr  :  he  was  arrived  to  matihood 
before  his  converfion  ;  and  afterwards  lived  td 
write  many  things,  which  recommended  him  to 
great  efteem,  and  fuffered  martyrdom,  ^.  Chriflii 
166.  This  muft  needs  bring  him  very  near  the 
apoftclick  age,  and  not  far  from  the  middle  of  it. 
IsJow,  it  is  manifefl;  that  infant- baptifm  was  prac* 
tifed  in  his  day,  from  two  things,  'uix.  i.  From 
their  giving  children  the  eucharift.  This  was  fo 
common  a  pradice  in  the  primitive  church,  and  fo 
well  known  in  hiftory,  that  I  need  bring  no  autho- 
rities to  prove  it.  And  infant-baptifm  is  evident 
from  thence,  becaufe  baptifm  always  preceeded 
the  Lord's  fupper  j  none  were  ever  admitted  to  it, 
but  fcch  as  were  baptized.  2.  From  his  laying 
that  there  were  then  living  perfons  of  60  or  'jo 

...        year& 


APPENDIX.         i2t 

years  old,  who  were  made  difclples  to  Chrift  in 
their  infancy.  For  "  none  could  be  confidered  and 
treated  as  di(ciples  to  Chrill  from  their  infancy^ 
without  being  from  their  infancy  baptized  :"  for 
all  his  di(ciples,  or  all  that  had  their  names  enter- 
ed into  his  fchool,  were  baptized  by  his  exprefs 
command.  Matt,  xxviii.  19* 

ircnam  was  trained  up  in  chriftianity  from  his 
infancy  to  the  age  of  a  man  by  Polycarp  bifhop  of 
Smyrna,  And  this  fame  Polycarp  fiiifered  mar- 
tyrdom at  Smyrna,  fays  Eufebeus,  about  the  year 
J  66.  Soon  after  this,  Irencsus,  who  was  a  prieft, 
was  created  bifliop  of  Lyom.  And  according  tc» 
authentick  hiftory  he  mud  have  lived  fome  years 
before  the  apoftle  'john  died.  This  Irenceus  com-^ 
pofed  many  things,  in  Greek,  againfl  herefies* 
The  Greek  is  loft  j  but  we  have  a  very  ancient  L^/m 
tranflation  of  them*  Among  other  things  he  fays^ 
Omnes  enim  venit  per  femet  ipjum  fatvare  j  omnes  in-^ 
qiiam,  qui  per  eum  renafcuntur  in  deum,  infantes 
etparvuks^  etpueros  etjuvenes  j  /*.  e^  "  Chrift  came 
**  to  fave  all  perfons  by  himfelf ;  all,  I  fay,  who  by 
**  him  are  regenerated,  or  baptized  unto  God, 
"  INFANTS  and  little  ones,  and  boys  and  youths." 
It  is  juftly  oblerved  from  Dr.  WaWs  hiftory  of  in- 
fant-baptifm^  that  the  word  renafcor  is  moft  fami-^ 
liarly  ufed  to  fignify  baptized,  and  particularly  in 
the  writings  of  Irenaus.  And  it  is  well  known 
that  the  word  infantes  fignifies  children  before 
they  come  to  the  ufe  of  reafon.  Hence  it  follows 
that  infant-baptifm  was  pradtifed  in  his  day  ;  and 
there  is  no  room  to  doubt  but  he  knew  the  pra(5tice 
of  the  apoftles  in  this  matter,  lince  he  lived  fom? 
Ifears  in  John'%  life-time. 

Qi^  Again  3 


til        A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X. 

Again  ;  with  little  variation  from  the  piece  ^n 
infant -baptiim^  wrote  by  the  author  of  the  an- 
fwer  to  Dr.  White's  Three  Letters,  I  fhali  mention 
ftertulliany  who  flourifhed  chiefly  under  the  reign$ 
©f  Severus  and  Antoninus  Caracalla^  from  the  year 
194  till  tow^ards  the  year  216.  This  fame  T^ertuU 
lian  appears^  from  many  of  his  writings,  to  be  very 
'whimjical^  and  a  man  greatly  afi'eSfing  fingolarity» 
He  "  is  the  only  perfon^  among  the  ancients,  who 
*'  advifes  to  defer  the  baptifm  of  infants,  estcept  in 

**  cajes  of  neeeffity^  or  in  danger  of  death  *^ And 

again  ;,  he  afksj  "  why  does  that  innocent  age 
**  make  fuch  hafte  to  the  remiffion  of  Sins?  (/.  e, 
**  to  the  laver  of  baptism)  What  occafion  is  there, 
**  except  in  cafes  of  neceflitv,  that  the  fponfors,  or 
*'  Godfather i^  be  brooght  into  danger  ?"  Now^ 
if  infant-baptilm-  had  not  been  pradifed  in  thole 
days,  how  fhould  it  come  into  the  mind  of  the 
inoft  whimfical  perfon  m  the  world  to  write  a- 
gainft  it  .?  His  queftions,  and  defire  to  have  it  put 
off  for  a  leafon,  unlefs  in  cafes  of  necefiity^  are  e- 
vident  proofs  of  th€  pra£tiee, 

I  might  now  offer  you  the  tefl^imony  of  Cy^ 
prian^  who  lived  about  i  50  years  after  the  A- 
poltles,  and  has  left  his  teftimony  for  the  pTa6lice 
in  his  day,  (De  lap/is^  fedion  j,)  But  as  he  lived 
in  the  time  of  the  Synod  of  66  Bifhops  which  I  re- 
ferred to  in  my  6fh  argument,  it  may  be  more 
convincing  to  give  you  a  brief  account  of  their  re- 
fult,  in  an  fwer  to  one  Fidus,  v/ho  was  alfo  a  bi- 
fhop.  Flis  fcruple  was,  whether,  in  any  cafe,  infants 
fhould  be  baptized  before  the  %th  day,  according 
to  the  law  of  circumcifion  under  the  former  dif- 
penfation  of  the  covenant  ?    To  which  that  S^nod 


APPENDIX.         125 

anfwers,  "    ^antum    veto  ad  catifam  infantium 

**  pertinet^    &c  • Longe  aliud  tn  cmcilio  nof- 

**  tro   omnibus  vifum  eft  ;  &c.^ Qsterum  fi 

*'  homines  impedire  alt  quid  ad  confecutionet7i  gra- 
tia  pojjet,"  &c.  The  fubftance  of  thofe  parts  of 
the  relult  referr'd  to,    is  as  follows,  viz.  *'  As  for 

"  the  matter  oi  infants,  whom  you  faid,  were  not 

"  to  be  baptized  within  the  jecond  or  third  day  of 

'*  their  nativity, — it  hath  appeared  to  us  in  our 

'*  council,  quite  contrary  j  no  one  maintained  your 

*'  opinion,  but  we  all  judged,  that  the  mercy  and 

**  grace  of  God  was  to  be  denied  to  no  man. 

**  But  if  any  thing  can  hinder  men  from  baptifm, 

*'  it  will  be  heinous  fins  that  will  debar  the  adult 

**  and  mature  therefrom  %    and  if  thofe  who  have 

'*  finned  extremely  againfi:  God,  yet  if  afterwards 

"  they  believe,  and  are  baptized,  and  no'  man  is 

**  prohibited  from  this  grace,  how   much  more 

**  ought  not  an  infant  to  be  prohibited,    who  be- 

*'  ing  but  juft  born,  is  guilty  of  no  lin,  but  of  o- 

"  rigina!,  which  he  contracted  in  Ad.^m  ? 

*'  Wherefore,    dearly  beloved,    it  is  our  opinion, 

"  that  from  baptifm none  ought  to  be  prohi- 

"  bited  by  us,    which  as  it  is  to  be  obferved  and 

*'  followed  with  refpedt  to  all  -,  fo  efpeciaily  with 

*'  refped;  to  infants^  and  thofe  that  are  butjull 

"  born." 

Hence,  tho'  Mr.  S.  can*t  find  a  word  in  all  the 
firft  writers,  in  favour  of  infant-bapcifm,  it  appears 
to  a  demonfi:ration,  that  infant-baptifm  was 
the  conftant  pradice  of  the  church  in  thofe  times. 
For,  Fidus  does  virtually  acknowledge  that  infant- 
baptifm  was  pradifed  in  the  church  ;  nor  did  he 
fuggeft  the  leafl  fcruple  about  the  propriety  of  it  j 

b'jt. 


124        APPENDIX. 

fcut,  as  It  came  in  the  room  of  circumcifion,  his 
Icruple  was,  whether  it  (hould  be  adminiftred  be- 
fore the  eighth  day.  Nor  did  any  one  of  all  that 
Synod  make  the  leaft  queftion  of  it,  but  fpake  of 
it  as  a  thing  univerjaily  pradifed.  The  decree 
of  that  Synod.,  refpeded  the  fcruple  of  Fidus  whe- 
ther an  infant  (hould  be  baptized  xh^  fecond  or  third., 
Or  whether  it  {hould  not  be  deferred  till  the  eighth 
day  ;  and  not  whether  they  fhould  be  baptized  in 
their  injancj.  *^  And  as  this  was  but  about  150 
**  years  after  the  apoftles,  there  is  no  room  to 
**  doubt  but  fome  of  tliofe  bifhops  were  baptized 
•'  juft  after  the  apoftles  days  i  and,  at  the  time  of 
*'  their  baptifm,  many  were  alive,  who  knew  the 
^*  apoftles  themfelveSj  and  their  pra<5lice  in  this 
J'  point.'^ 

We  might  quote  Clemens  Alexandrinm^  ^^^g\ 
iSlazian.,  Bafil^  Ambroje^  Chrylcjiom^  and  a  cloud 
«)f  witneftes,  to  {how  that  infant- baptifm  has  been 
■conftantly  pradifed  .from  the  very  beginning  of 
chriftianity  :  but  confidering  Mr.  S.  has  offered 
nothing  from  the  ear  lie  ft  writers,  that  can  be  of 
any  weight  with  the  judicious  reader,  it  is  appre- 
hended that  fufficient  li^ht  has  been  offered,  to 
make  it  manifeft,  that  infant  baptifm  was  pradifed 
in  the  church,  from  the  apoftles  to  the  3  J  century, 
about  the  time  Mr.  S.  without  proof,  endeavours 
to  perfuade  his  readers  it  took  place. — ' — And  from 
that  time  to  this  it  has  been  pradifed  in  the  church  i 
nor  was  it  difputed,  except  in  fome  few  inftances, 
until  the  ^th  century.  What  he  fays  (Page  41.) 
from  Mr.  Stemiet  concerning  a  profeflion  of  holi- 
;iefs,  has  been  fully  anfwered  already.  We  don't 
pre^^nd  but  th?  adult  ufed  thsn^  as  now^  to  make  a 
__  __        profeflio^ 


APPENDIX.         I2J 

profeffion  of  faith  before  baptifm.  But  what  of 
Sill  that  ?  Will  it  follow  from  thence  that  the  in- 
fants of  villble  believers  were  not  baptized  ?  Or 
what  if  two  or  three  inftances  in  a  hundred  years 
could  be  found  that  had  fcrupled  infant- bapiilra, 
(which  is  not  the  cafe  in  the  earlieft  ages  of  chrif- 
tianity)  even  that  would  prove  nothing  againll  the 
practice  of  the  whole  church. 


Upon  the  whole  :  It  appears  that  infant-baptifai 
was  p  radii  fed  by  the  whole  church  in  the  apolloiicic 
age  ;  and  that  it  continued,  without  interruption, 
down  to  the  time  our  learned  writer  fays  it  begun  j 
—That  it  was  pradifed  by  thofe  that  could  hav(2 
no  reafonable  doubt  in  their  minds  how  the  apofties 
Yra<ftifed  in  their  day  ;— And  therefore,  that  the  a- 
pofties  themfelves  had  taught  and  pradtifed  the 
fame,  and  confequently,  that  when  they  fpake 
and  wrote  of  baptizing  houfholds,  they  always  in- 
cluded  the  children  of  fuch  families. What  a 

ihameful  impofition,  therefore,  is  it  upon  mankind, 
to  affert,  or  fo  much  as  to  infinuate,  as  if  antiquity 
was  againft  infant-baptifm  ?  If  Mr.  S,  •'  believes 
**  himlelf,'*  in  fuch  repeated  infinuations,  and  has 
read  the  hiftory  of  the  earliefl  times  and  praflicc 
of  the  church,  after  the  apoftlef,  never  man  read 
hiftory  to  lefs  good  purpofe,  as  every  one  may  fee, 
who  will  take  due  pains  to  examine  ancient  prac- 
tice. And  it  will  be  no  more  than  a  well  grounded 
confidence  that  I  now  affirm,  from  the  days  of 
John  the  baptift,  unto  this  very  time,  the  church 
of  Chrift  has  been  polTefs'd  of  thi;?  great  privile:;e 
V)ithout  interruption,  tho'  flie  has  often  been  alLuU- 
^d  by  the  adverfanes  of  the  truth.  \i  this  afHr- 
][i;atiorj  is  no:  ji)ft,  1st  Mr.  5,  in  hi?  next,  vciicbfviic 


\i6        APPENDIX. 

to  fbow  his  readers  when  it  was  not  an  ufage  of 
the  church. 

I  kt.  nettling  further,  except  aifumbg  airs  an4 
vain  repetitions ;  but  what  I  have  fuihciently  noti- 
ced till  he  comes  to  remark  upon  what  I  offered 
from  Rom^  iv.  1 1 .  Upon  which  he  tells  nie,it  is  time 
for  me  to  learn  that  neither  circumcilion,  nor  bap«* 
tifm,  is  any  where  in  Scripture  called  a  feal  of  the 
covenant,  Sc  Circumcifion  '*  v^as  a  feal  to  A* 
**=  brabam  :  but  not  to  his  poflerity,"  (See  Pag€ 
44.) 

Anf.  As  Mr.  S.  he^?M  with  criticifing  upon 
word^  to  he  leems  dilpoicd  to  go  on  —No  doubt 
lie  expeded  to  giiin  great  advantages  from  my  ig- 
norance and  his  eminent  fkili  in  the  languages.— 
Nor  i'>  he  alone  in  denying  baptifm  to  bt*  a  ieal  of 
the  covei>ant  of  grace.  Belkrmiyi(\  and  [he  whole 
crowd  of  hiipapifficat  foUowtrrs  have  faid  the  fame 

before  him, Bnt  let  us  confider  whether  the 

FapiJIs  muft  not  fail  in  this  matierj  even  tho'  Mr« 
B»  ileps  La  to  fappoi't  them. 

Perhaps  thefc  great  men  confound  \k\t  fea!  of  the 
Spirit,  and  the  feal  of  the  covenant  of  grace  ;  or, 
at  lealf,  coniid.^r  them  of  equal  extent,  when  they 
deny  baptifm  to  be  a  feal.  But  if  they  deny  it  from 
thencCj  to  fay  the  moft  favourably  of  them,  they  are 
under  an  unhappy  miftake  :  for,  the  feal  of  the 
covenant  is  a  privilege  of  the  vifible  church  j  but 
the  feal  of  the  Spirit  is  a  privilege  of  the  inviiible 
church.  The  feal  of  the  covenant  belongs  to  the 
whole  houfe,  in  which  there  are  vcffels  of  honour 
g-Ud  dilhonour  5  but  the  feal  of  the  Spirit  is  proper 


APPENDIX.         127 

<mly  to  fuch  as  are  marked  out  by  God  to  the  day  of 
redemptien.  The  fcal  of  the  Spirit  is  abfolute  and 
infallible  -,  but  the  leal  of  the  Govenaiit  is  condi- 
tional. 

I  am  fendbfe  that  the  Anttmmians  join  with  the 
bellarmineaji  Papifts,  m  faying  there  is  no  conditi- 
onal feal  of  grace.  But  if  it  be  fo,  how  can  Mr. 
S,  or  any  of  his  brethren,  adminifter  either  baptifm, 
or  the  Lord's  fupper,  to  any  of  their  people,  whom 
they  know  not  that  God  the  Father  hath  fealcd 
by  his  Spirit,  or  will  ever  lave  from*  fin  and  wrath  ? 
Or  win  Mr.  5.  fay,  that  he,  or  any  other  man,  or 
a  whole  congregation,,  or  the  elders  of  a  church, 
can  determine  who  it  is^  that  God  has  feakd  and 
will  fave  ?  Whatever  he  may  fuperflttkujly  ima- 
gine, in  his  hearty  he  will  not  venture  to  fay,  that  he 
does  not  adminifter  facraments  condhionaliy,  as 
th€  privilege  of  the  vifible  churchy  belonging  to- 
thofe  that  make  a  vifible  profefliony  whom  he 
knows  rK)t  that  God  has  juftified  or  will  ever  fave. 

But  is  it  not  pofiible  that  Mr.  5.  fhould  flip  in- 
to this  error,  from  taking  every  thing  upon  trufi 
that  his  friend  Bellarmine  has  written  upon  the 
point?  If  it  be  fo,  "  it  is  time  for  him  to  learn"' 
better ;  and  therefore  I  will  tell  him,  that  both 
the  Hebrew  and  Greeks  rendered  in  Englijh  a  Seal,. 
iignrfies  ajign  whereby  a  thing  is  confirmed.  And 
TO  SEAL,  is  tojign  with  [ome  mark,  whereby  fome 
things  or  perfons  may  be  known  from  others.  If 
Mr.  S.  fcruples  this  account,  he  may  take  his  He^ 
brew  Bible,  and  examine  Ezra  ix.  38.  Chap.  x.  i, 
Jer.  xxxii.  10 — 14,  44.  and  his  Greek  Tcftament, 
and  read  i  Cor»  ix.  2.  Rom.  xv.  28.    Joh?i  vi.  27. 


128         APPENDIX* 

^c.  &c.  If  he  is  acquainted  with  thefe  kngtia* 
ges,  and  efpeGJally  if  he  is  a  mafter  of  them,  and 
examines  impartially,  perhaps  he  will  find  and 
confefs,  that  I  have  given  him  as  good  an  account 
as  he  might  reafonably  exped  of  "  a  fmatterer/' 
■ — — But  will  he  yet  fay,  that  a  feal  always  fuppo- 
fes  that  the  thing  fealed  is  fulfilled  ?  If  fo,  I  afk 
him,  what  is  meant  by  obligations  under  hand 
and  feal  ?  What  are  we  to  underftand  by  the  co?2^ 
dition  of  an  obligation  in  a  bond,  unlefs  the  con* 
dition  is  doubtful  ?- — He  may  alfo  confider,  whe- 
ther the  feal  of  circumcifion  was  not  only  for  the 
confirmation  of  God*s  promifes  unto  Abraham  and 
his  feed,  but  of  their  obligations  to  be  the  Lord's, 
as  well  as  to  afiTure  him  of  being  a  partaker  of  the 
righteoufnefs  of  faith  ? 

''  But,  It  feem?,  Mr*  S.  has  found  out  that  cir« 
cumcifion  was  a  feal  to    Abraham,  but  not  to  his 

pofierity. Herein  alfo  he  follows  after  Bellar-^ 

mine.  But  this  popiffo  (hift  will  not  ftand  the  teft  i 
for,  Paul  brings  in  circumcifion  to  be  a  feal  of 
the  righteoufnels  of  faith^  as  a  proof  of  juflificati- 
on  by  faith  alone,  which  could  be  no  evidence  at 
all,  if  it  had  been  proper  to  Abraham,  and  not  to 
others, — And  befides ;  what  (hall  we  fay  of  Mejes^ 
who  refers  circumcifion  to  the  covenant.  Gen.  xvii. 
7.  If  circumcifion  was  a  feal  to  /tbrahaniy  and  not 
to  his  feed,  then  the  covenant  was  with  Abraham^ 
and  not  with  his  feed,  which  contradicts  what 
Mo^es.  has  exprefsiy  taught  us. — And  let  Bellarmine*% 
followers  confider  how  they  will  clear  themfelves 
of  feveral  abfurdities,  which  they  involve  them- 
felves in.  Particularly  j  if  circumcifion  was  a  feal 
to  Abraham  only,  then  the  covenant  with  Abra-^ 

' h(irn^ 


APPENDIX.         129 

ii^m,  and  the  covenant  with  all  other  old  tefla- 
ment  believers  efjentially  differs,  the  one  from  the 
other.     Ahrabam  and  new  tciiament  believers  may 
poffibly  be  under  one  covenant;  bat  old  teftament 
believers  muft,    according  to  this  fcheme,    be  un- 
der another  covenant  effcntially  differing  therefrom^ 
and  confequently  there  muft  be,  at  lealt,  two  co- 
venants of  grace.— Again  ;    if  circumciiion  WaS  a 
feal  to  Abraham  only,   then  Zacharias^  expound- 
ing the  Ahrahamick  covenant,  [Luke  i.  69 — 75.) 
and  God's  oath  unto  Mraham  and  David^  1  efptdt- 
jng  falvatioTi  by  Jefus  Chrift,    grofsly  miiied  it  s 
for,    according  to  this  fchenie,   he  fliould  have  li- 
mited the  mercy  to  Abraham  only,  and  not  have 
extended  it  to  all  that  followed  him,  even  all  that 
came  out  of  Egypt.      According  to  Mr.  S,   Za- 
cbarias  ihould  have  faid  that   *'  the  fathers,    who 
*'  were  under  the  cloud,  and  palTed  thro'  the  fea, 
"  had  not  the  fame  promife  that  Abraham  had  5 
"  and  that  God  did  not  remember  his  holy  cove- 
*'*  nant,    nor  the  oath  he  fv/ore  unto  Abraham." 
Yea;   according  to  them,    Abraham  and  all. 
Chriftiafls  are  ia  Chrift;  but  all  other  believers  are 
under  the  law,  without  Chrift  and  without  hope;; 
even  MoJ^s  himfelf  mull:  be  fadly  miftaken,  when 
he  put  the  greateft  evils  attending  religion,  and  the 
greateft  worldly  profperity  in  the  balances,    and 
then  concluded  that  the  heavieft  contempt  And 
perfecution  which  the  Ifraelites  fuffered,   and  he 
was  liable  to  fuffer,    were  preferable  to  the  great- 
eft  emoluments  of  a-  fruitful  land,    and  a  fplendid 

Egyptian  court. Further  ;  it  will  follow  from 

this  wonderful  plan,  that  Abraham  and  Chriftians 
have  the  kingdom  of  God  and  (hall  be  faved  5  but 
the  reft  of  the  J^wSj  poor  fouls,  had  nothing  bet- 

R  ter 


130        APPENDIX, 

ter  than  the  land  of  Canaan  for  their  portion. 
Such  a?  thefe,  and  fame  other,   were  the  abfurdi- 
ties  which  Bellarmine  plunged  himfeli  into;    and 
Mr.  S.  zealoufly  following  after  him,  feems  "  will- 
*^  ing  to  fay  almafl  any  thing,  rather  than  confefs 
*'  the  truth/* 

Mr.  5.  P*  45.  undertakes  to  prove  by  command 
or  example^  that  women  have  a  right  to  the  Lord's 
fupper.  To  this  end  he  adduces  j^Bs'i.  13,  14. 
Chap,  ii.  41 — 47.  Chap.  V.  9,  14.  Now,  altho" 
we  make  no  doubt  but  women  may  have  a  right 
to  the  Lord's  fupper;  yet  lam  fure  he  has  brought 
neither  exprefs  command  nor  example  to  prove  it. 
The  utmoft  that  can  be  proved,  relpeding  wo- 
men, from  the  firfl  quotation,  is,  that  the  difci- 
ples  continued  in  prayer  together,  in  the  prefence 
of  fome  women. — And  as  to  tht  fecond^  it  is  not 
certain  from  the  letter  of  the  text,  that  one  fingle 
■wom.m  was  of  the  number  of  Peter's  converts. 
And  although  both  fexes  are  mentioned  in  'he  laji 
text  referred  to,  there  is  not  a  word  about  the 
Lord's  fupper.  To  what  purpofe  then,  does  Mr. 
S.  amufe  people  with  a  pretence  of  having  brought 
an  exprefs  command  or  example,  to  prove  that 
w omQn  Jhote/d,  or  did,  receive  the  Lord's  fupper? 
Thoui^h  we  fairly  argue  their  right,  by  way  of 
confequence,  yet  he  has  brought  no  proof  of  their 
rijht,  either  from  precept  or  example,  nor  any 
thing-  tending  thereto. — And  he  is  as  lame  in  his 
proof  of  the  change  of  the  babbath,  from  the  fe- 
venfb  to  the  Jjrfi  day  of  the  week.  Inaeed,  were 
I  to  read  a  perfect  flran^er  upon  the  change  of 
the  Sabbaih,  that  Ipake  fo  indifferently  about  it,  I 
fhould  thiiik  he  did  not  hold  the  morality  of  the 


APPENDIX.         131 

fourth  command  ;  but  that  It  is  a  good  thing  f  )r 
Chriliians  to  meet  together  fome  day,  or  part  of 
a  duy,  in  a  week,  for  (ome  religious  duties.  And 
in  as  much  as  we  find  the  Apollles  fometimes  met 
on  the  firft  day  of  the  week,  and  it  is  ufual  for 
Chriliians  to  do  fo  now-a-days,  it  is  well  to  meet 

on  that  d.iy. Truly,   if  my  proof  of  infant- 

baptifm  was  no  better  than  this,  I  fliould  think  it- 
high  time  to  drop  it. 

P.  47.  Mr.  S.  tells  his  readers,  that  I  have  told 
them  of  three  covenants  of  grace  ;  one  with  Je- 
fus  Chrift,  one  with  Abraham^  and  one  with  Eve, 
And  if  by  Noah's  I  mean  a  covenant  of  grace, 
then,  he  fays,  I  have  told  oi  Jour.  And  then, 
once  more,  tells  his  devoted  readers,  that  they  may 
eafily  fee  what  confufed  notions  I  have  of  the  co- 
venant. He  does  not  fay  that  I  make  out  a  fifth 
covenant,  to  take  in  thofe  Ejauitcs^  who  have  de- 
fpifed  their  birth-right. 

Nor  am  I  fo  profufe  of  charity  as  to  think  he 
believes  himfelf,  when  he  fays  1  have  told  the 
world  of /'/rd'f  covenants  of  grace.  But  the  ilraits 
he  was  brought  into,  together  with  his  fliuffles_, 
and  the  light  he  has  received  from  Jeptits^  he  has 
left  for  the  amufement  of  his  readers.  M  his  evi- 
dence was  as  full  and  clear  as  his  confidence,  I 
could  not  fland  before  him  :  and  if  his  confidence 
had  been  as  little  and  low  as  his  evidence,  he 
would  never  have  expofed  himfelf  to  the  contempt 
of  intelligent  readers. What  if  I  had  reckon- 
ed up  Mofes  and  all  the  prophets,  befides  the  ma- 
ny thoufands  of  believers  under  the  ancient  dif- 
pcnfation  of  the  covenant }     No  doubt,  accord- 


132         APPENDIX. 

ing  to  the  method  in  which  he  has  begun,  he 
would  have  entertained  his  readers  with  eonfident- 
ly  afferting,   that  I  had  told  of  fo  many  covenants 
of  grace.      I  am  not  convinced  by  ridicule,    that 
calling  Eve  the  mother  of  all  living,  not  fo  niuch 
becaufe  all  mankind  defcended  froxxi  her,  as  be- 
caufe  (he  was  a  covenant  mother,  as  Abraham  was 
the  covenant  father  of  us  all,  was  a  blunder.    Nor 
is  the  thought  derived  from  Rom€\  but  agrees  with 
the  moft  renov/ned  Proteflants,    as  any  one  that 
is  able  may  fee  in  Synop,  Crk.  Pol.  on  Ge}2,  iii,.  20. 
l^on  dubium  efi^  quin  ad  promijurd  femm  refpexit^ 
ideo    Ts'T]  vocat^  q.  d.  vivi fie atr teem,    quod  mOtrtu- 
urn  genus  hominum  per  ipfius  partum  vivificandum 
Joret.      As  Eve  was  the  caufe  of  death  to  all  that 
live,  fo  (he,  as  well  as  Abraham  and  David,  was 
the  root  of  him,    who  is  the  author  of  liie,   and 
of  all  thofe  bleffings  of   the  covenant  of  grace, 
both  to  herfelf,  and  to  all  her  pofterity,  that  they 
do  or  {hall  enjoy.      Many  are  included  in  this  co- 
venant,   becaufe  they  are  vifibly  in  Chrift,    who 
will  be  caft  out  at  laft.    Many  have  been  caft  out> 
as  Cain  and  Ijhmaei  were  5    and  many  others  caft 
themfelves  out,   by  profanely  renouncing  the  cq- 
venant  they  were  taken  into  with  their  parents. 
'Tis  true,  Mr.  .S.  tells  his  readers,  again  and  again,. 
that  if  all  were  taken  into  covenant,  all  would  he 
faved  J   /",  e.  go  to  heaven  :    but  this  ahfurdity  has 
been  made  manifeft  already.    And  therefore,  whea 
he  fays,    "  fo  that  we  fee  the  covenant  of  grace 
*'  which  was  revealed  to  Adam,  Abraham,  Ice. 
"  did  not  include  their  children,"  it  is  well  he  did 
not  add,    that  we  fee  this  by  fcripture  light ;   for, 
according  to  the  light  fhining  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures^  no  man  living  can  fee  but  the  children  of 

*~  believers 


APPENDIX.         133 

believers  are  included  with  their  parents  in  the 
4:Gvenani  of  grace. 

P.  4§.  Mr.  S.  oppofes  me  for  faying,  fbe  cQve^ 
nafit  is  the  foundation  of  ordinances  j  and  gives  this 
for  a  reafon  of  his  oppoiition,  viz.  "  It  is  God's 
"  eornmand  which  gives  being  to  them."  But 
allowing  it  is  the  commjind  that,  gives  being  to 
them,  what  will  he  gain  by  it  ?  We  have  granted 
that,  had  there  been  no  inftitiition,  it  would  have 
been  prefumption  to  liave  figned  the  cove- 
nant with  the  feal  of  circumcifion  under  the  for- 
mer, or  with  that  of  baptifm  under  the  prefent 
difpenlation.  But  what  is  that  to  his  purpcfe  ? 
Was  the  covenant  the  foundation  of  the  inftitution, 
or  was  it  not  ?  If  it  was,  then  the  covenant  is  the 
foundation  and  reafon  of  the  command.  But  if  he 
will  fay  it  was  not,  then  let  him  deal  with  M^Jes 
for  telling  us  that  the  covenant  is  the  reafon  or 
foundation  of  the  inftitution,  Gm.  xvji.  9,.  ?o. 
Jibraham  was  in  covenant  many  years  before  God 
inftituted  the  fign  of  circumcilion  as  a  feal  of  the 
covenant  ;  but  when  he  ordained  that  feal  to  be 
put  to  it,  it  had  refpedl  to  the  covenant  as  the  rea- 
fon or  foundation  of  it.  And  when  the  initiating 
feal  of  the  covenant  was  changed  from  ciFcumeifi- 
on  to  baptifm,  this  was  by  a  divine  command  ; 
and  as  the  inftitution  of  circumcifion  had  relation 
to  the  covenant  j  fo  the  prefent  inllitution  of  bap- 
tifm i§  founded  on  the  covenant. 

Mr.  5*.  feveral  times  reprefents  me  as  writing 
with  a  bitter  fpirit,  and  fevere  reflections  upon  the 
Anahafti^S  in  my  application, — I  am  willing  that 
Piould  fpeak  for  itfelf  3  and  the  reader  will  judge 

whether 


134        APPENDIX. 

whether  his  cenfure  does  not  arife  from  my  plain 
dealing  being  contrary  to  his  intereft. — If  I  fhould 
attempt  to  make  any  alteration  in  my  way  of  wri- 
ting, and  fiill  wrote  faithfully,  I  am  jealous  he 
will  fay  that  i  am  yet  more  vile,  and  villify  me  the 

more   for  well-doing. ^If  the  reader  is  heartily 

delirous  to  lay  alide  all  prejudices,  and  go  into  fe- 
rious  and  impartial  enquiries  into  the  will  of  God, 
refpeding  the  grand  dodrine  1  have  defended,  and 
the  application  I  have  made,  there  is  reafon  to 
hope,  he  will  have  that  divine  affiflance,  which 
will  enable  him  to  judge  right,  both  of  my  argu- 
ments, and  my  defence  ;  and  alfo,  of  that  afi'u- 
mingand  captious  fpirit,  which  is  written  as  with 
fun-beams  in  Mr.  «S's  performance.  I  readily  grant 
■  that,  in  compliance  with  Solomon's  advice,  I  have 
ufed  a  little  feverity  in  this  appendix,  left  tame- 
nefs  fhould  encourage  arrogance,  and  he  fhould 
think  "  mere  noife  v^ithout  fubftance,"  was  real- 
ly unanfwerable  ;  or  leaft  he  il  ould  think  pretences 
to  pity  might  fervc  as  a  fufficient  cloak  to  any  evil 
defign. 

I  fhould  now  clofe  my  appendix,  but  that  Mr. 
S.  attacks  me  for  a  marginal  note,  which  was  in  my 
Jirji  edition.  And  i.  He  feems  loth  to  have  the 
fed:  reprefented  as  re-baptizers-,  and  fays  they  don't 

hold  to  it. If  they  don't  hold  to  it,  I  am  forry 

they  pradife  it,  and  make  2ijchijm  in  the  body  of 
Chrift  thereby.  But  this  is  a  flagrant  truth,  that 
they  fo  fence,  limit,  gua'd  and  reflrain  their  com- 
munioft,  and  require  thofe  conditions  of  all  whom 
they  admit,  that  men  mufl  put  out  their  eyes,  or 
Jin  againft  their  conjcience,  or  not  be  admitted  to 
their  communion.     The  only  hindrance. that  ob- 

flruds 


APPENDIX.         135 

ftru^ls  the  freedom  of  external  communion  Is  whol- 
ly owing  to  themfslves.  They  deipife  and  fet  at 
naught  z\\n\S!\xn  churches,  merely  on  account  of  a 
particular  fn"de  of  baptifm,  which  they  have  not 
yer  proved  ejjential  to  the  being  of  that  holy  ordi- 
nance. 

Mr.  5.  attempts  to  prove  it  from  the  word  hap" 
tizo  ;  and  tells  us  that  Scapula  renders  baptizo,  by 
mergo,  feu  immergOy  ut  qua  timjndi^  aut  abluendi 
gratia  aqu<^  im?nergimus,  to  dip  or  plunge,  ^c. 
Or  mergo ,  fubmergo J  obruo  aqua^  to  plunge,  plunge 
under,  overwhelm  in  water.  Very  good  ;  but  why 
has  he  kept  back  a  part  of  what  Scapula  has  (aid  ? 
Is  it  to  hide  the  truth  from  thofe  that  can't  exa- 
mine that  Greek  Lexicon  \  Whatever  his  motive 
was,  he  takes  only  what  he  thought  would  ferve 
his  turn,  and  leaves  the  reft.  Scapula  exprefsly  adds, 
item  abluOj  lavo,  which,  if  he  does  not  know, 
doubilefs  his  voucher  knows  muft  fignify,  to  wafh 
off,  put  off",  waih  one's  felf  or  another  perfon. — 
and  Schrevelius,  as  he  allows,  renders  the  word 
baptizo^  by  lavo,  as  well  as  mergo^  to  wafli,  as 
well  as  plunge. 

And  as  great  criticks  in  Latin  and  Greeks  as  ei* 
ther  of  the  former,  fay  the  fame,  and  more.  Van 
Maftricht  fays  baptijma  fignifies  lotioneniy  ablutio" 
nem,  i\w<^  a/per fi<>ne,  iiwQif?ij?ierJiojie -,  /.  ^.  wartiing, 
ablution,  whether  by  alpeyfion,  or  by  immerfion, 
Pol.  Synop.  Crit.  on  Mark  vii  4.  fays  baptif- 
mous^  non  femper  tinElionem,  aut  immerfionenij  fed 
inter  dum  Lotionem  t  ant  urn  y  vel  etiam  aiperfionem^ 
denotatat.  i,  e.  the  Greek  word  baptifmous^  does 
not  always  denote  dipping,  diving,  or  immerliom, 

but 


x^6        APPENDIX. 

but  fometimes  Wafhing  only,  of  even  afperfioOe 
And  again  ;  vel  aqudB  affujime^  'uel  tmmerjione  :  i.  e, 
by  effalion,  or  immeriion.  Grotius  fays,  ebaptifthi 
idemelt  ae  enipjdto  tas  kiras^  Luke  xi.  38.  i.  e,  it 
is  the  fame  in  fignification  with  the  Greek  ufed  for 

"waihing  the  hands. Symfon,  a  very  learned 

Lexichographer^  fays,  baptizo  is  taken  for  any  kind 
of  wafliing,  rinling,  or  cleanling,  even  where  there 
is  no  dipping  at  all ;  and  adds,  that  baftifm  im- 
porteth  no  more  than  ablutim,  or  "wajhing. — Nor 
can  the  word  fignify  more,    in  many  fcriptures. 
Let  us  attend  to  one  or  two.     See  Matt.  xx.  2i* 
Can  you  bear--^to  be  baptized  with  the  baptijm  that 
1  am  baptized  with  f  Here  it  ought  to  be  obferved, 
that  the  queftion  is  not  what  kind  of  baptiftn,  of 
fufferings  Chrift  had  to  go  through  ;    but  what 
baptifm  or  fufferings  he  endured  before  his  lafl 
hour.    And  we  all  may  know  that  he  was  mocked^ 
fpit  uporty    bruijed^  beaten^  &c.     Now,  thefe  and 
fuch  like  places  can  by  no  means  reprefent  p!u'n^ 
ging,  without  offering  Violence  to  the  plain  literal 
fcnfeof  them.  So  that  i  Cor.t,  2.  Andwere^U  bap" 
iized  unto  Mofes  in    the  cloudy   and  iti  the  Jea» 
Taking  the  familiar  fenfe  of  the  words,    eVery 
man  would  be  ready  to  fuppofe,    "  that  the  I/ra' 
*'  elites  were  fprinkled  here  and  there,  with  drops 
*'  of  water  from  the  Sea,  as  they  paffed  along,  and 
**  from  the  cloud  that  w^as  fpread  over  them.'* 
By  which,  fays  Dr.  Guife  from  a  learned  commen- 
tator, the  facrametit  of  baptifm  might  be  more  e- 
vidently  lignified.     And  fo,  it  muft  refer  to  the 
adminiftration    by    fprinkling,    and    not  by  im- 
meriion 5  fince  the  Egyptians,  that  were  drown- 
ed in   the  fea,  were  baptized  by  the  waters  co- 
vering   them^    rather   than   the   Ijraelites^   that 

"  ~  ~        """       went 


APPENDIX.  137 

went  on  dry  land,  and  could  be  no  other  way 
wadicd,    than  with    drops  that  might   fall  from 

the  cloud  and   the  dafhing  of  the  waves." 

Hence  it  appears  that  baptizo  does  not  make  im- 
merfion  effenti^il  to  the  being  of  chriftian  baptifm, 
becaufe,  according  to  great  and  learned  chriftian 
writers,  it  does  fignify  ablution,  afperfion  and 
washing,  where  there  is  no  dipping  at  all,  as  well 
as  immcrfjon. 

I  beg  the  readers  patience,  while  I  turn  afide 
once  more,  to  meet  my  antagonift  in  his  learned 
criticifm^  upon  the  word  autou.  He  tells  us,  it  is 
a  pronoun  relative,  and  that  its  antecedent,  in  Atls 
xvi.  33.  is  the  jailor  in  perfon  and  not  in  cBion. 
The  Greek  ftands  thus,  Kai  ebaptifthe  autos^  kat 
oi  autou  pantes  parachrema.  Beza  renders  it, 
et  baptizatus  eji  ipfe^  et  cmnes  domeliici  illius 
iilico ;  I.  e.  he  himfelf  was  immediately  baptized 
and  all  his  domefticks.  Montanus  renders  it,  et 
haptiz^atus  eft  ipfe,  et  omnis  domus  ejus  continuo  ;  /.  e. 
he  was  baptized,  and  all  his  houle  forthwith.  I 
advife  Mr.  S,  to  get  the  help  of  fome  of  his  bre- 
thren, better  acquainted  with  relatives  and  antece- 
dents than  himfelf,  before  he  writes  again,  even 
tho'  it  fhould  be  againft  a  fmatterer,  left  the  un- 
learned reader  fhould  be  amufed  with  "  mere 
**  noife  without  fubftance.*' 


<( 


But  to  proceed  :  Mr.  S.  an<.s  whether  "  it  is  not 
evident  that  Chrift  was  baptized  of  John  in  the 
"  nvev  Jordan?"  and  quotes  Mar.  i.g.  Anf.  No: 
it  is  not  evident ;  for  eis  ton  Jordanen,  may  as 
properly  be  rendered  at  Jordan,  becaufe  the  pie- 
poluion  eis  very  commonly  ftgnifies  at^  as  well   as 

S  in. 


138         APPENDIX. 

in.  And  fo  the  prepofition  apo^  Matt.  Hi.  16J 
might  as  well  be  renderedyrcw,  2L%aut  cf^  the  water. 
And  it -would  not  make  fenfe  to  render  it,  out  of\ 
in  many  places  J  particularly  7W^/^.  i.  17.  Ch.  i8„ 
8,  o.  Heb.  V.  7.  and  elfewhere.  Hence,  no-' 
thing  can  be  certainly  determined  from  thefe  pre- 
pr.fitions,  as  to  immerfion  being  effential  to  bap- 
tifiri. 

Neither  dare  Mr,  S.  venture  it  here  ;  but  runa 
to  the  ufage  of  the  church  at  the  beginning  of 
chriftianity.  To  this  end  he  brings  a  cloud  of 
witneffes,  and  lays,  (P.  53.)  they  "  all  give  in  that 
•;'  immerfion  was  the  primitive  mode  of  baptifm.'* 
By  this,  I  fuppoie,  he  would  have  his  readers  be- 
lieve that  all  thefe  authors  witnefs  that  immerfion 
was  univerlally  pradifed  in  the  beginning  of  chrif- 
tianity.  Therefore  I  defire  the  reader  to  obferve, 
I.  Nothing  that  he  has  adduced  from  theni 
makes  it  appear  that  the  pradice  was  univerfal^ 
or  that  they  thought  it  was  fo  :  the  utmoft  that 
can  be  gathered  from  thence,  is,  that,  in  thofe  hot 
countries,  they  did  fometimes  baptize  by  immer- 
fion ;  or  that  it  was  not  uncommon  to  adminifler 
in  that  way.  But,  2.  It  is  certain  that  Mr.  Bur- 
kitt  (one  of  his  witneffes)  never  meant  to  fuggeft 
that  it  was  an  univerjal  pradlice ;  for  he  exprefdy 
fays  upon  A5is  ii.  41.  *'  We  need  not  enquire, 
*'  whether  the  apoftles  did  it  by  dipping  or  fprink- 
*'  ling,  both  being  lawful  j  but  this  may  be  faid, 
*'  it  is  hard  to  guefs  bow  luch  a  quantity  of  water 
i^'  could  be  brought  to  the  place,  as  might  ferve 
"  tor  the  decent  dipping  of  3000  perfons  in  fo  fhort 
*'  a  time.  And,  upon  fuppofition  that  the  water 
l^.  was  not  brought  to  them,  but  they  went  dowix 


APPENDIX,         139 

to  that  ;    baptizing  fo  many  by  dipping,  would 
have   required  a  Vv^eek  rather  than  a  day  to  dil- 

patch  it  in." -And  again,  upon  A£ls  xvi.  33. 

e  obferves,  "  how  improbable  it  is  that  the  jai- 
lor and  his  houfliold  were  baptized  by  dipping. 

St.  Paul,    who   was  newly  wafhed,    and 

his  fores  dreffedj  occafioned  by  ftripes,  cannot 
be  fuppofed  either  to  go  out  himfelf,  or  carry  the 
jailor  and  his  family,  in  the  dead  of  the  night, 
to  a  river  or  pond  to  baptize  them  ;  neither  is  it 
in  the  leaft  probable,  that  St.  Paul  himfelf  was 
baptized  by  dipping  :  fee  ABs  ix.  18,  19.  The 
context  may  convince  uSj  that  he  was  baptized 
in  his  lodgings,  being  fick  and  weak,  ha- 
ving failed  three  days,  and  being  in  a  very  low 
condition,  partly  by  his  miraculous  vifion,  and 
partly  by  his  extraordinary  fafting  j  it  was  no 
ways  probable  that  Ananias  fhould  carry  him 
out  to  a  river  in  that  condition^  to  plunge  him 
in  cold  water.  Dipping  then,  furely,  cannot  be 
fo  effential  unto  baptifm,  as  for  want  ot  it,  to 
pronounce  all  the  reformed  churches  through- 
out the  world,  to  be  null  and  void,  as  fome  a- 
mong  us  do;  and.  it  may  as  well  be  fuppofed 
that  the  other  witneiTes  did  not  rnean  that  dip- 
ping was  univerfal." From  whence  the  rea- 
der may  eafily  fee  that  authors  may  fuppofe  it  was 
not  very  unufual  to  dip  in  baptizin:^;,  when  they 
are  far  from  fuggefting  that  it  was  an  univerjal^xiiZ-* 
tice.  And  therefore  it  is  -a.  fallacious  impofitiori 
upon  the  publick  to  bring  authorities  to  prove  an 
univerjaly  which  were  defigned  only  to  ihow  fome 
particulars,  and  not  an  univerfal  pradice. 

Upon  the  whole  :   nothing  appears  from  the 

word 


140        APPENDIX. 

word  baptizo  ;  nor  from  the  prepolitions  eh  or  apo'^ 
nor  from  primitive  pradtice,  that  immerlion  is  ef- 
fential  to  chriftian  baptifm.  Confequently  it  is  nO' 
toriouSj  that  thofe  are  guilty  of  fchifm,  who  pro- 
nounce the  baptifm  of  the  reformed  churches  no 
chriftian  'ba;ptifrn,  merely  becaufe  they  do  not 
pradtife  immerfion.  What  fhall  be  faid  then,  of 
thofe  who  profefs  to  be  well  acquainted  with  the 
origmaiiextj  and  with  the  ancient  modes  of  admi- 
nillration,  who  infinnate  into  the  minds  of  the  il- 
literate that  our  baptifm  is  no  no  chriftian  bap- 
tifm ;  and  fo  perfuade  many  to  renounce  it  as  a 
mere  nullity  ?  Where  fhall  we  find  the  lead  rea- 
fon  to  hope  they  are  not  feeking  themfelves,  and 
driving  on  a  party  defign  againfi:  Chrift  and  his 
dear  caufe  ?  Is  fetting  up  an  uninftituted  mode, 
as  efTential  to  the  being  of  an  ordinance,  the  way 
to  promote  the  common  caufe  of  chriftianity  ?  Or 
is  it  not  rather,  to  take  off  peoples  minds  from  the 
moft  concerning  matters,  and  fet  them  to  contend 
for  that  which  has  nothing  in  it  ? 

For  a  clofe  of  the  argument  concerning  the  fin- 
fulnefs  of  perfons  renouncing  their  lawful  baptifm  j 
fufFer  me  to  addrefs  thofe  who  have  lately  fubmit- 
ted  to  be  re-baptized,  efpecially  in  the  adjacent 
towns.  My  addrcfs  {hall  be  nearly  in  the  words  of 
a  very  w^orthy  clergyman  of  the  ^/>//<;o/'^/ church, 

upon  the  like  occafion. "   Allow  me  then,  in 

*'  the  name  of  my  Gr  fat  Mast  f  p  ,  and  for  the 
**  honour  of  his  holv  infHtutions,  which  have  been 
"  {hamefully  proOituted  by  fome  of  you  lately  in 
*^  this  neighbourhood,  to  expoftulate  the  cafe  with 
"  you.  I  befeech  you  ferioufly  to  confider,  both 
'^^  the  fin  committed  againit  God^  and  the  fcan- 
~  ' —        "^        ««  dal 


APPENDIX,         141 

■*'  dal  given  to  good  men.  By  renouncing  your 
**  former  baptifm,  you  have  renounced  your  firfl 
**  dedication  to  God,  and  your  former  covenant 
*'  relation  to  his  Son  Jefus  Chrifl.  You  have  dif- 
•*  own'd  that  you  ever  were  the  vifible  members 
*'  of  his  body  :  you  have  profaned  a  folemn  ordi- 
**  nance  of  God,  and  taken  his  holy  Name  in  vain, 
**  You  have  condemned  all  the  proteftant  church- 
*'  es  throughout  the  world,  who  decry  this  prac- 
*J  tice  of  yours  as  an  abomination." 

Confider,  I  befeech  you,  how  fliamefully  you 
are  fallen,  and  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repen- 
tance. Why  have  you  precipitated  yourfelves 
into  this  evil  ?  "  The  particular  mode  of  admi- 
"  niftering  baptifm  is  not  pofitively  determined 
"  in  the  Scriptures  :  it  cannot  be  afcertained,  ei- 
**  ther  from  the  fignification  of  the  word,  or  from 
"  the  lignificancy  of  the  ceremony,  or  from  the 
"  command  of  Chrift,  Not  from  the  fignificati- 
"  on  of  the  original  word,  for  that  fignifies  ^«- 
"  fiorij  and  afperfion^  as  well  as  immerlion.  Not 
"  from  the  (ignificancy  of  the  ceremony,  forpour- 
'*  ing  water  on  the  perfon  baptized,  is  as  fignifi- 
'*  cative  of  pouring  out  the  blood  of  Chriil:,  and 
'*  pouring  forth  of  the  Spirit  upon  a  Chriftian,  as 
'*  dipping  can  be.— — Nor  do  we  find  any  com- 
'*  mand  from  Chrift  to  make  it  appear  that  any 
■'  particular  mode  of  adminiilration,  diftinguifh- 
'*  ed  from  all  other  modes  of  adminiftration,  is 
■'  eflential  to  baptifm.      We  are  required  to  bap- 

*  tize  with   water,    in  the  name  ot  the  Father, 

*  and  of  the  Son,   and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  :    but 

*  we  find  no  command,  either  for  the  meafure 

"  and 


142         A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X. 

*'  and  quantity  of  the  water,    or  for  the  manfi'sr 
*'  of  applying  the  water  in  baptifm." 

Confider,  I  befeech  you,  what  has  been  th^i 
firfl:  moving  caufe  of  your  falling  into  this  great 
error  ?  Was  it  intereft,  to  fave  your  money  j  or 
was  it  ftrong  prejudices  againft  your  minifter  j  or 
was  it  wild  enthufiafm^  as  was  evidently  the  cafe 
in  Qermany  ?  Let  what  will  be  the  caufe,  is  it 
not  great  pity  that  an  uncommon  degree  of  zeal 
fl^jould  be  manifefled  about  a  mode  of  adminiflra- 
ftion,  efpeeially,  fince  nothing  can  poffibly  be  af- 
certained  as  to  a  particular  mode,  either  from  th« 
v/ord  baptizo^  or  from  the  fignification  of  the  ce- 
remony, or  from  the  command  of  Chrift  ?  Do 
you  begin  to  fay,  as  one  lately  faid,  be  dipt  or 
damned  ?  *  Is  all  true  religion  expiring  ;  will  it 
foon  be  gone,  unlefs  you  renounce  all  chriftian 
churches  for  the  fake  of  a  mode,  which  no  man  li- 
ving can  prove  eifential  to  the  being  of  chriftiaa 
baptifm  ?  O  take  heed  how  you  fet  up  a  particu- 
lar mode  of  an  inftitution  at  your  own  pleafure, 
when  it  is  in  its  own  nature  indifferent.  If  any 
liave  faid  to  you,  the  Lord  jaith  that  immerlion 
is  elTential,  they  ha'ue  fpoken  canity ^  and  you  ren* 
der  yourfelves  vain  in  believing  them. 


*  The  zeal  of  fuch  a  teacter  agrees  with  the  AnalaptiRs  in 
the  Low-Countries,  A.  D.  1^55.  Who  pretended  to  be  the 
only  true  church,  and  declared  that  falvation  could  not  be  hc» 
ped  for,  out  of  their  comnaunion.     See  Braba?if^  Hift.  vol.  i. 


FINIS, 


ERRATA, 

Page  21.  line  7.  for  rules  read  rule,  P.  23.  I.  3!^ 
for  were  broken  off  r.  were  not  broken  off.  P.  30. 
I.  21.  for  Thus  X,  Ihis.  P.  42.  I.  5.  for  1  am  able 
r.  lam  not  able,  P.  43.  1.  8.  for  happy  r.  unhappy^ 
P.  68.  I.  10.  for  effufion  r.  affufion,  P.  72.  1.  3*;;' 
for  the  Scriptures  r.  thefe  Scriptures,  P.  77.  1.  r,, 
for  the  r.  ^/j.  1.  5.  for  if/>f/^  r.  thofe.  P.  89.  1.  3. 
for  and  iii.  5.  r.  Frov,  iii.  6.  I.  23.  for  frangii 
X,  Jin§it,    P.  121, 1  25.  for  Watts"  r,  fVaU's, 


r 


